Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Tariffs won't be the UK's biggest problem, it will be regulations.

Yes very much so, but also somewhat No. For some important products the tariffs will matter much.

Cars with a 10% EU27 WTO tariff will not be competitive in the EU27 and will not be saved by the low pound - and not by an ever lower pound.
UK assembled cars can have just 25% 'UK value added' while up to 75% will be imported and costed in a non devalued foreign currency (€, CZK, PLN,..., even $).
E.G. a huge 20% devaluation of the pound will thus only reduce the price of cars by 5%

Beef, lamb will face tariffs of 40-50% or more. This will make it impossible to export these and other farm products.

Fish exported will face very unpleasant WTO tariffs and will in addition be sensitive to delays at the border. Delays will directly shorten the shelf life of fish in EU27 shops and restaurants. The UK exports fish - e.g. mackerel, herring, shellfish - for about 1.3bn/yr to the EU27.

Fish and farm are economically rather insignificant business areas for the UK as such, but they are very important for many rural communities. Why fishers and farmers voted for Brexit is beyond me.

Lars

Foghladh

PeadarCo wrote: »

The UK won't have it's own standards in practice . It will have to make choices on which standards to either directly follow the standards of the block it aligns itself with or so closely that it makes no difference(and if that economic block decides to make drastic changes the UK would be forced to do the same). Look at Ireland since independence, a lot of UK standards have been accepted more or less because it's the most practical option. The same will apply to UK Post Brexit. However the UK like Ireland in the past will have no influence over them. The UK will have standards and laws imposed by pure economics post Brexit. That's what being a small country and economy entails as Irelands economic history pre EU shows. Relative to the EU, the UK outside the block is small.

The UK will have its own trade policy. But it will be limited to which economic block it aligns itself with. By doing a trade deal with one block you may rule out a trade deal with another. The issue of chlorinated chicken is a perfect example. The UK will have to choose who's standards it wants to accept. And that is just one of countless choices the UK will be forced to make.

The biggest lie of Brexit was taking back control. The UK will lose much of the control it had as part of the EU. The UK isn't in a position to negotiate on it's own with any of the major economic powers as the entire brexit process has aptly shown.

That's not accurate. What any country has to do is make sure that the goods offered for export meets the required standard of the receiving country. The UK already has its own standards which currently align with EU requirements for transfer within the EU. If the UK trades with the US in the future it means that goods offered are compatible with US standards. It is possible for a country to maintain its own standards and export goods that meet others. If what you claim is true then any country outside of a trade bloc would be committed to dealing with one group and not another

johnnyskeleton

Flex wrote: »

UK Prime Minister Johnson has this evening wrote a letter to Donald Tusk

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/106014/read-full-boris-johnsons

In it he refers to the 'undemocratic backstop' as being nonviable and makes out that the backstop actually undermines and threatens the GFA. In exchange he suggests the backstop be replaced by commitments to implementing alternative arrangements.

Effectively its absolutely nothing new; 'replace the backstop with a pledge to seek alternative arrangements before the end of the transition period'. My feeling on this is that as others have mentioned here, the UK government and media is full steam ahead at its 1984 style brainwashing of the UK populace but is getting zero public reactions from the EU or EU capitals and is becoming frustrated. I believe this is an attempt to draw a public reaction that they can use to feed the propaganda machine at the moment, and as such I really hope its met with continued silence.

Yep, more of the same, pandering to domestic interests. Two points in particular:

1. Why Donald Tusk? He isnt the negotiator.

2. His words make it clear that hes speaking to the DUP:

The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement,

Why call it that other than that you know everyone calls it the GFA but want to show that you know the DUP call it something different.

Kermit.de.frog

I mentioned before the Tories will try to bring the CTA in to this as a tool to cajole Ireland.

Suddenly it's being mentioned again by the British side.

I am convinced they will use it as a stick soon.

prawnsambo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why call it that other than that you know everyone calls it the GFA but want to show that you know the DUP call it something different.

I believe that's what it's called in UK legislation.

Strazdas

Flex wrote: »

UK Prime Minister Johnson has this evening wrote a letter to Donald Tusk

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/106014/read-full-boris-johnsons

In it he refers to the 'undemocratic backstop' as being nonviable and makes out that the backstop actually undermines and threatens the GFA. In exchange he suggests the backstop be replaced by commitments to implementing alternative arrangements.

Effectively its absolutely nothing new; 'replace the backstop with a pledge to seek alternative arrangements before the end of the transition period'. My feeling on this is that as others have mentioned here, the UK government and media is full steam ahead at its 1984 style brainwashing of the UK populace but is getting zero public reactions from the EU or EU capitals and is becoming frustrated. I believe this is an attempt to draw a public reaction that they can use to feed the propaganda machine at the moment, and as such I really hope its met with continued silence.

Reaction from journos on Twitter is that it is a ridiculous publicity stunt by Johnson and he is not attempting a negotiation at all. It's probably aimed at various interests in the UK.

listermint

Foghladh wrote: »

That's not accurate. What any country has to do is make sure that the goods offered for export meets the required standard of the receiving country. The UK already has its own standards which currently align with EU requirements for transfer within the EU. If the UK trades with the US in the future it means that goods offered are compatible with US standards. It is possible for a country to maintain its own standards and export goods that meet others. If what you claim is true then any country outside of a trade bloc would be committed to dealing with one group and not another

That's also not accurate. The UK would have to lower it's standards to accept food from the US this negating any EU deals of similar goods as the EU standards will not be lowered.

That is more accurate .

Foghladh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yep, more of the same, pandering to domestic interests. Two points in particular:

1. Why Donald Tusk? He isnt the negotiator.

2. His words make it clear that hes speaking to the DUP:



Why call it that other than that you know everyone calls it the GFA but want to show that you know the DUP call it something different.

I don't think that everyone calls it that. It's listed on the UK Government's website as "The Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, was reached in multi-party negotiations and signed on 10 April 1998" Just because we know it as the GFA doesn't make it the only name. Besides both were referenced

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I mentioned before the Tories will try to bring the CTA in to this as a tool to cajole Ireland.

Suddenly it's being mentioned again by the British side.

I am convinced they will use it as a stick soon.

Best of luck stopping Armagh supporters as they cross the border for a match down south.

johnnyskeleton

reslfj wrote: »

Fish and farm are economically rather insignificant business areas for the UK as such, but they are very important for many rural communities. Why fishers and farmers voted for Brexit is beyond me.

In farmers' case, because every time they have to do something that is more work or costs money e.g. tagging sheep, they complain to local politicians who say "I know, but the EU made us do it", so they believed that Brexit would mean that they make the same money but can take a lax approach to animal and environmental welfare etc.

As regards fishermen, I can see why they can hate the EU when they cant catch any more fish because theyve reached their quota, but see that a Spanish trawler is still out. Again, they dont realise that quotas ensure fish stock renewals, the quotas are set by EU at a macro level but on the micro level of who gets what thats up to the UK government, and most importantly its all very well for them to be able to fish to their hearts content post Brexit, but who will they sell the fish to? Also, its worrying that fishermen describe "fish" in general terms when there are so many differences in the varieties. Apparently the UK market doesnt overly care for crab, prawn, macrel etc, i.e. the fish caught in British waters, and prefer cod and salmon. So fishermen are really shooting themselves in the foot over it, as the CFP allows them to fish in the waters that produce the fish British people like, and to process and sell those fish that they dont.

Foghladh

listermint wrote: »

That's also not accurate. The UK would have to lower it's standards to accept food from the US this negating any EU deals of similar goods as the EU standards will not be lowered.

That is more accurate .

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

That's also not accurate. The UK would have to lower it's standards to accept food from the US this negating any EU deals of similar goods as the EU standards will not be lowered.

That is more accurate .

They could maintain different standards. The problem would then be ensuring only goods to the correct standard are exported to the EU or any other country requiring similar standards. But it is done by the US and South American countries for example. Although there have been lapses in the case of Brazil that I know of where shipments of chicken were returned having been found to carry salmonella.

BluePlanet

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I mentioned before the Tories will try to bring the CTA in to this as a tool to cajole Ireland.

Suddenly it's being mentioned again by the British side.

I am convinced they will use it as a stick soon.

I agree, they are looking for anything to use as leverage.
Already threatening everybody from the EU currently living in Britain, why not the Irish?

PeadarCo

Foghladh wrote: »

That's not accurate. What any country has to do is make sure that the goods offered for export meets the required standard of the receiving country. The UK already has its own standards which currently align with EU requirements for transfer within the EU. If the UK trades with the US in the future it means that goods offered are compatible with US standards. It is possible for a country to maintain its own standards and export goods that meet others. If what you claim is true then any country outside of a trade bloc would be committed to dealing with one group and not another

Yes but are businesses prepared to bear the costs? I'd agree with you in principle and I'd agree that I exaggerated a bit. However it still doesn't get around the costs involved for exporting to different markets with different regulations and standards. If there are minor differences there might be minimal costs. However the bigger the differences the bigger the costs. At a certain point it becomes unprofitable to make the required changes. Where this comes into play for a country like the UK is imports. The closer its standard are to another economic the less non tarrif barriers importers will face and the greater options the UK consumers will have.

However in my post I mentioned economics forcing the UK to align with one of the major economic blocks. That doesn't change. UK regulations can be as different as the UK wants from the rest of the world providing the country is prepared to deal with the increased cost and lack of choice that comes with having very different regulations compared to the rest of the world. However it most economical/cheaper to go with the standards most used and tested internationally. Which means the UK deciding whose standards to follow the EU/US/Chinese etc and having no influence over them. Now as part of a major economic block in the EU the UK can directly influence global standards. It will lose that power after Brexit.

johnnyskeleton

prawnsambo wrote: »

I believe that's what it's called in UK legislation.

Had he just called it the Belfast Agreement that would be fine. But acknowleding both names seems deliberate, as does it being repeated several times. Maybe its a Jacob Rees Mogg style guide thing, but it certainly reads like pandering to them when the world seems to know it as the GFA

If he was a stickler for the proprieties, like Nigel Farage, then maybe giving its UK title would be more reasonable

Foghladh

PeadarCo wrote: »

Yes but are businesses prepared to bear the costs? I'd agree with you in principle and I'd agree that I exaggerated a bit. However it still doesn't get around the costs involved for exporting to different markets with different regulations and standards. If there are minor differences there might be minimal costs. However the bigger the differences the bigger the costs. At a certain point it becomes unprofitable to make the required changes. Where this comes into play for a country like the UK is imports. The closer its standard are to another economic the less non tarrif barriers importers will face and the greater options the UK consumers will have.

However in my post I mentioned economics forcing the UK to align with one of the major economic blocks. That doesn't change. UK regulations can be as different as the UK wants from the rest of the world providing the country is prepared to deal with the increased cost and lack of choice that comes with having very different regulations compared to the rest of the world. However it most economical/cheaper to go with the standards most used and tested internationally. Which means the UK deciding whose standards to follow the EU/US/Chinese etc and having no influence over them. Now as part of a major economic block in the EU the UK can directly influence global standards. It will lose that power after Brexit.

I don't really see where you're coming from. You seem to be of the point of view that if you're exporting a product to a country then all industry must align with that country's standards. As a stand alone entity I could export a chicken to the EU if it meets the EUs' standards. I can export a tractor to Brazil if that tractor meets Brazilian standards. My particular standards for what I'll accept could be completely different.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

Reaction from journos on Twitter is that it is a ridiculous publicity stunt by Johnson and he is not attempting a negotiation at all. It's probably aimed at various interests in the UK.

Yes, I have seen a few reactions from journalists and they are all dismissive of it. When you have the Europe Editor of The Daily Telegraph tweeting this, well then it has not gone well.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163545030981750784?s=20

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163546436816031747?s=20

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163547679449899008?s=20

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163548735370137601?s=20

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163549709031628800?s=20

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1163550630457348096?s=20

He focuses on Johnson telling the EU that a deal can be done if the EU just trusts the UK. We are back to the negotiations already before the backstop, where similar lines were spouted but rejected. I agree that this is not a serious attempt to negotiate, this is just window dressing to sell it as an attempt to negotiate. It is the buyer going into BMW and telling them he will buy a new 3 series for £10K and when they tell him to bugger off he calls foul and berates them for not negotiating.

Here is the Guardian front page for tomorrow already,

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1163559350549569538?s=20

So the letter has not been well received as you may expect. The WA is not open for negotiation and the backstop is the legal guarantee for no hard border. That will trump, "trust me", in most people's eyes but the UK it seems.

Foghladh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Had he just called it the Belfast Agreement that would be fine. But acknowleding both names seems deliberate, as does it being repeated several times. Maybe its a Jacob Rees Mogg style guide thing, but it certainly reads like pandering to them when the world seems to know it as the GFA

If he was a stickler for the proprieties, like Nigel Farage, then maybe giving its UK title would be more reasonable

So your issue is that rather than referring to it by its UK title he referred to both?

johnnyskeleton

Foghladh wrote: »

So your issue is that rather than referring to it by its UK title he referred to both?

Its not an issue I have with the letter. Its that one can reasonably infer from theanguage used who the real intended audicence is

Valhallapt

Chuck Schumer (us senate minority leader) has written to secretary Pompeo stating that they won’t support a trade deal that undermines the GFA

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1069740/?__twitter_impression=true

Also told him to stop making promises that he can’t keep. I suspect they see trump shouting about U.K. trade deals as nothing more than supporting his pal farrage.

Seth Brundle

In the first page of his letter to Donald Tusk, Johnson refers to retaining the benefits if the Single Electricity Market.
Will the Single Electricity Market continue to exist tariff free after a no-deal exit?

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1163531548999802881?s=19

Water John

Johnson, of all people, telling the EU to trust him, is a pathetic joke. They know him well.

Headshot

Water John wrote: »

Johnson, of all people, telling the EU to trust him, is a pathetic joke. They know him well.

I nearly chocked on my drinking water when I read that. I bursted my hole with laugher


The same man who is a serial liar throughout is career

Foghladh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its not an issue I have with the letter. Its that one can reasonably infer from theanguage used who the real intended audicence is

Well if I were to put you on the spot, then what language used pandered specifically to one side? Other than the Belfast/Good Friday bit?

Valhallapt

Regarding the end of FoM. Let’s suppose they adopt a 2 month holiday period which is visa free for EU citizens,

Piere from France comes to Ireland on the 1st of November he plans to go to the U.K. at some point, he leaves from a U.K. port 3 months after arriving at an Irish port. How would they know if he overstayed his holiday period?

FrancieBrady

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, I have seen a few reactions from journalists and they are all dismissive of it. When you have the Europe Editor of The Daily Telegraph tweeting this, well then it has not gone well.


He focuses on Johnson telling the EU that a deal can be done if the EU just trusts the UK. We are back to the negotiations already before the backstop, where similar lines were spouted but rejected. I agree that this is not a serious attempt to negotiate, this is just window dressing to sell it as an attempt to negotiate. It is the buyer going into BMW and telling them he will buy a new 3 series for £10K and when they tell him to bugger off he calls foul and berates them for not negotiating.

Here is the Guardian front page for tomorrow already,


So the letter has not been well received as you may expect. The WA is not open for negotiation and the backstop is the legal guarantee for no hard border. That will trump, "trust me", in most people's eyes but the UK it seems.

I sincerely hope that those filmmakers are still making their fly in the EU wall documentary, just to see the reactions as these missives come in.

Strazdas

Foghladh wrote: »

Well if I were to put you on the spot, then what language used pandered specifically to one side? Other than the Belfast/Good Friday bit?

"Anti democratic backstop" is clearly not aimed at the EU (the phrase doesn't even make any sense). That is purely for the British audience.

Kermit.de.frog

Valhallapt wrote: »

Chuck Schumer (us senate minority leader) has written to secretary Pompeo stating that they won’t support a trade deal that undermines the GFA

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1069740/?__twitter_impression=true

Also told him to stop making promises that he can’t keep. I suspect they see trump shouting about U.K. trade deals as nothing more than supporting his pal farrage.

Seems like Irish American influencers are mobilising. Wasn't quite convinced until now but clearly a real diplomatic effort with Irish American interests is underway now.

Kermit.de.frog

Strazdas wrote: »

"Anti democratic backstop" is clearly not aimed at the EU (the phrase doesn't even make any sense). That is purely for the British audience.

That's Cummings. And he told the lemmings to go out and repeat, repeat, repeat.

Popeleo

IIRC one of the conditions that the UK signed up to in order to get the current extension was to agree to not try and renegotiate the WA. For all the posturing of the last few weeks, could Johnson's letter be seen as the first formal attempt to do so with the EU?

All the reputational damage (added to some historical bad blood) will count against them if they go 'no deal' and then look for a deal of some sort afterwards.