Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

10000maniacs

Most of Labours front bench want to remain. If Labour win the GE and go for a second referendum, Europe is going to refuse to negotiate a new deal with them. What's the point if you are going to campaign to remain anyway? they will say. I think it is Corbyn who is insisting on this idiotic mixed message.

beggars_bush

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

At least in this country, RedC, MRBI and B&A may vary in terms of their poll figures for individual parties, but are generally consistent when it comes to the range and trends of data. The last 24 hours of tracking the various British surveys on Britain Elects, on the other hand, suggests that UK pollsters have learnt nothing from either 2015 or 2017 - where the Tories had 10 and 14% leads yesterday, that has been reduced to 3 and 4% in further polls today, so are they wildly at odds in relation to weightings and/or methodologies?

They still ring landlines during the day
Older people mainly have landlines and would be at home
The methodologies are completely skewed towards the party in power

moon2

There's been a lot of talk about how the UK will, once they're free of the EU, create trade deals superior to what the EU have negotiated. In all these discussions I haven't seen much mention of Most Favoured Nation clauses. I did a bit of searching and the most concise rundown I've found so far is http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/publications/most-favoured-nation-clauses-in-eu-trade-agreements-one-more-hurdle-for-uk-negotiators/ .

The summary for a UK-EU trade agreement is:

If the EU granted the UK significantly better access to its services markets, this would mean that the same treatment would need to be extended to Canada, South Korea, all CARIFORUM countries, Japan, Vietnam and Mexico ‘for free’ (assuming that Vietnam and Mexico’s agreements enter into force before a potential UK-EU deal). Although these countries may not be large enough to make such concessions to the UK impossible, they will surely be a discouragement.

and for UK-Anyone else

Should the UK wish to re-negotiate the terms of the existing EU agreements post-Brexit, the MFN obligations discussed above appear to virtually prohibit the parties to these agreements from granting any better treatment, with respect to services and investment, to the UK than has already been granted to the EU. If they did, they would be required to extend the same concessions to the EU, an economy six times the size of the UK, ‘for free’. This seems like a price too high to pay.

The get-out clause to avoid falling under these clauses is, broadly speaking, a soft Brexit with regulatory alignment. So, if these are as relevant as they sound to 'Global Britain', why aren't they being spoken about? If there's a hard Brexit i sincerely doubt the electorate will be told "The amazing deals we will be creating will be equal to, or worse, than what we used to enjoy, and they'll take years to finalise".

Enzokk

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'd say them lads aren't too fussed about the Brexit situation. Just a handy opportunity to kick off. I can't think of one possible impact of the EU on my life that would make me want to attack the police.

I think they have been whipped up, but Brexit like you say may not be the real reason. I think it plays about 1/3 of a role in trying to get a fight.

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

I am convinced I am in a coma and this nonsense is not reality.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1170610941383385088

Raab rabbiting on about how they have solutions but dont want to give them to the EU.. for fear of getting ridiculed.
How can you actually negoitiate with this level of amateurism?

The plan seems to be to not tell the EU of the solution until the last minute and hope that will scare them into conceding to the UK. Its the Theresa May plan, and we remember how successful that was. I wonder if the Foreign Secretary has gotten to read the GFA yet.

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

It is his business if Johnson cannot get a deal through. Why waste precious time negotiating with him when he it will be futile. The time will be better spent on no-deal preparations and testing him his plans if he wins a majority than trying to negotiate a deal now when he has no control over parliament.

lawred2

Enzokk wrote: »

It is his business if Johnson cannot get a deal through. Why waste precious time negotiating with him when he it will be futile. The time will be better spent on no-deal preparations and testing him his plans if he wins a majority than trying to negotiate a deal now when he has no control over parliament.

100%

But does it need saying publicly?

Irish Praetorian

moon2 wrote: »

There's been a lot of talk about how the UK will, once they're free of the EU, create trade deals superior to what the EU have negotiated. In all these discussions I haven't seen much mention of Most Favoured Nation clauses. I did a bit of searching and the most concise rundown I've found so far is http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/publications/most-favoured-nation-clauses-in-eu-trade-agreements-one-more-hurdle-for-uk-negotiators/ .

The summary for a UK-EU trade agreement is:


and for UK-Anyone else


The get-out clause to avoid falling under these clauses is, broadly speaking, a soft Brexit with regulatory alignment. So, if these are as relevant as they sound to 'Global Britain', why aren't they being spoken about? If there's a hard Brexit i sincerely doubt the electorate will be told "The amazing deals we will be creating will be equal to, or worse, than what we used to enjoy, and they'll take years to finalise".

There is actually one exception to the MFN rule which is if two countries decide to create a 'Free Trade Area' which is what a lot of people mean nowadays when they say two countries have signed a 'Trade Agreement'. However there are two problems the UK faces in going down this route;

Firstly they cannot start treating countries they are already trading with worse, simply because they now have a trade agreement with someone else. So the UK cannot for example, make a trade area with the US to allow the free import and export of cars whilst at the same time putting tariffs of say 20% on EU made cars.

Secondly, there is no 'sector picking', so the big canard of 'phoahh we'll lift tariffs on NZ lamb and they'll lift tariffs on our financial products' simply does not fly in reality - if you are going to create a 'Free Trade Area' under WTO rules, those agreements need to cover the entirety of the economy, not just bits and pieces.

In addition to these, the idea that the UK can start levying tariffs willy nilly is also a bit of a slap in the face to the WTO and I suspect would not get very far.

Leroy42

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Politics are all about disagreeing with the opposition, not about what's best. May's deal was a good compromise, and it did enough to please enough of the people, but Labour did not vote for it, yet now they are crying out for it.

TM deal was indeed a good compromise based on the red lines created by TM. There was no need to create those red lines.

Labour voted against in part because of the red lines that led to the WA being as good as i could get, but knowing that removing those red lines could enable a far better deal.

Joe_ Public

Labour could not support the WAB because it gave them absolutely no guarantees about any of the things relating to workers' protections, environmental regulations and so on that they cared about. They could not simply let it through and then trust that the government would look after those things when negotiating the future relationship, what they called a "blind brexit."

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

100%

But does it need saying publicly?

That is a fair observation. I think with the question on whether the UK is sending proposals or negotiating with the EU now and the conflicting reports from the EU, it is better to get your message out there for yourself. Then if it comes out after their meeting and the UK denies it, well Varadkar is on record that he would raise the issue and it is harder for Johnson to lie and mislead.

Theanswers

MadYaker wrote: »

Maybe it would be better for everyone if they just left on the 31st regardless. This needs to be over now one way or another. I was listening to Patrick Honohan (our central bank governor) on the radio a few days ago and he seemed to think a no deal brexit would obviously be bad but it would only result in a recession that was a fraction (one eight I think he said) of what we experienced after 2008. Agri food business hit the hardest obviously. Dublin would barely be effected as it's industry is very US focused and is mostly based on services / tech / financial etc.

Basically his opinion was the brits will be fcuked but we'll be alright after a year or two and the farmers are gonna need some help.

Soft Landing anyone?

McGiver

cryptocurrency wrote: »

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Better get used to it. If you think the US, China, Japan won't bend the UK over a barrel, you are in for a shock.

Just look how hard a bargains Faroe islands and handful African countries have driven. At this rate UK will be setting up NHS in other countries and paying for it.

Japan is one country of a shrinking population yet can handle themselves on the global stage, as does NZ and Australia.

UK would be far better with a five eyes security, trade partnership that is truly global. The EU is a fly in comparison.

More waffle.

Japan population is not shrinking, just not growing. Secondly, Japan's population is double the UK. Thirdly, Japan is extremely industrious country. Fourthly, it ranks as number one on Economic Complexity Index (ECI) and has held the top place for a long time. Finally, Japan actually produces lot of patents and manufactures hi-tech products which the whole world demands highly. It's a world leader in several industrial areas, comparable to say Germany.

UK is ranks #11 on the ECI which is quite OK, but what is alarming that it dropped from rank #6 in last 10 years. UK absolutely is not an industrial leader AFAIK, manufacturing is in decline in the UK at the expense of services. And any form of Brexit will deal a big blow to any remaining manufacturing.

By the way, can you remind us what exactly does the UK want to sell to the whole rapidly growing world "outside of the protectionist EU" in all those wonderful FTAs the UK is supposedly going to strike after the glorious EU exit?

References:
https://oec.world/en/rankings/country/eci/

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/#Economic_Complexity_Ranking

EDIT: Oops, the troll is gone, but perhaps someone else will reply my question

prawnsambo

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There is actually one exception to the MFN rule which is if two countries decide to create a 'Free Trade Area' which is what a lot of people mean nowadays when they say two countries have signed a 'Trade Agreement'. However there are two problems the UK faces in going down this route;

Firstly they cannot start treating countries they are already trading with worse, simply because they now have a trade agreement with someone else. So the UK cannot for example, make a trade area with the US to allow the free import and export of cars whilst at the same time putting tariffs of say 20% on EU made cars.

Secondly, there is no 'sector picking', so the big canard of 'phoahh we'll lift tariffs on NZ lamb and they'll lift tariffs on our financial products' simply does not fly in reality - if you are going to create a 'Free Trade Area' under WTO rules, those agreements need to cover the entirety of the economy, not just bits and pieces.

In addition to these, the idea that the UK can start levying tariffs willy nilly is also a bit of a slap in the face to the WTO and I suspect would not get very far.

A free trade area is actually pretty much what the Single Market is. It's not the same as a free trade agreement which can be as broad or as narrow as both parties want. The MFN rules the OP was talking about, only apply outside a free trade agreement. Once you have a free trade agreement, nobody outside that agreement has any right to the conditions agreed. So MFN rules don't apply.

Looks like this story slipped under the "boards.ie radar"

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0908/1074591-brexit-britain-ireland/

French minister says 'no' to more Brexit delays



France's foreign minister has said that, as things stand, the European Union would not grant the UK an extension beyond 31 October to negotiate its exit from the bloc.
Jean-Yves Le Drian told Europe 1 Radio that it was very worrying and the British must say what they want.
"In the current circumstances, it's no! ... We are not going to go through this every three months."

If correct, Boris will be able to deliver no deal, despite the best efforts of parliament to thwart him.

Headshot

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this story slipped under the "boards.ie radar"




If correct, Boris will be able to deliver no deal, despite the best efforts of parliament to thwart him.

Not really. It's been discussed already.

The French were the same before the previous extension as well, it's all bluster.

When all said and done the French will accept the extension again.

Nody

prawnsambo wrote: »

A free trade area is actually pretty much what the Single Market is. It's not the same as a free trade agreement which can be as broad or as narrow as both parties want. The MFN rules the OP was talking about, only apply outside a free trade agreement. Once you have a free trade agreement, nobody outside that agreement has any right to the conditions agreed. So MFN rules don't apply.

Only a minor caveat here but EU has in at least their latest FTAs a clause that if any other country gets better terms they will get the same terms as well basically. This is what makes UK's idea that they can get a better trade deal so funny as well because what ever improvement they could get EU gets as well.

Imreoir2

Headshot wrote: »

Not really. It's been discussed already.

The French were the same before the previous extension as well, it's all bluster.

When all said and done the French will accept the extension again.

Possbly, hard to see much advantage to France in forcing a no-deal. Perhaps just trying to send the UK a message that brinksmanship on the question of no-deal is not going to shake the EU.

I would find it quite surprsing if the French went on a solo run and forced a no-deal on the UK, especially given that they did not before.

A Shropshire Lad

Whats the point of another 3 months though. Whats going to change in that time ? A UK election could easily end up with a hung parliament and the same situation ?

Imreoir2

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Whats the point of another 3 months though. Whats going to change in that time ? A UK election could easily end up with a hung parliament and the same situation ?

Its fairly unlikely, UK politics is in flux right now and the swing vote could go any number of directions. The FPTP system is essentially designed to deliver majorities, hung parliaments are quite rare and there is no reason to expect one in a time of upheaval.

prawnsambo

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Whats the point of another 3 months though. Whats going to change in that time ? A UK election could easily end up with a hung parliament and the same situation ?

It could. But a hung parliament where a different coalition take power could put a completely different complexion on things. Or the possibility of a majority. Things are coming to a head now and another three months could make a difference.

Strazdas

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Whats the point of another 3 months though. Whats going to change in that time ? A UK election could easily end up with a hung parliament and the same situation ?

I've a feeling the EU would attach strict terms and conditions to an extension. They won't just say "Here, have another three months on us".

Seth Brundle

Theanswers wrote: »

Soft Landing anyone?

I don't believe that former CB Governor Patrick Honohan said anything like that!

interlocked

Well indeed, anything could happen, UK politics is so volatile that we're in uncharted waters. An extreme case, is that the HOP would send the Speaker to Europe as their representative. That would be Box Office Gold.

josip

Macron might be more forceful this time around.
The last time I think he bowed to Merkel's pressure, but Merkel has since announced her departure.
Being seen to be tough on the UK might be good for him domestically.
Some businesses near the Channel would suffer, but apart from that, I think France could weather the impact.

joe40

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling the EU would attach strict terms and conditions to an extension. They won't just say "Here, have another three months on us".

An extension, this time would be different, because at the very least there will be an election, so with a new government things may change. If Tories get in with a majority then it will probably be no deal. But at least it will be after an election where everyone knows the issues now.

Mr.Nice Guy

Interesting thread from Faisal Islam tonight on the possibility of an NI-only backstop:

Northern Ireland-only backstop given a token rebranding, but essentially the same as was totally rejected by UKG in March 2018, is now only plausible landing point for a deal, including one that might get okay from Ireland and European Parliament.

No 10 don’t need DUP any more...

I’m not sure it is plausible to get that through the Commons though. would have to be on back of dozens of Labour votes if they believed it was the only alternative to No Deal. But you would get support from even some of the fired Conservative MPs.

... in practice would mean Great Britain having a Canada style deal, and unfettered freedom to sign trade deals. A form of Irish Sea border, when UK diverged from EU regulations/ signs those deals.

Not sure how you make that palatable across House - maybe a time limit - unlikely.

Understand that some visiting delegations have indeed been told in Brussels that NI-only backstop could be produced “overnight” has backing of EU27, Parliament, Commission - while clearly does not have Unionist support, many NI biz groups have backed it...

It would be so good to see Arlene and co. be thrown under the big Brexit bus after all their hubris.

Leroy42

Number of advantages to granting an extension from the EU.

Johnson whole bluster is shown for what it is. Either he asks for the ex and thus is a lame duck or he refuses and will resign.
If he stays on and fights an election and wins then the UK public have given their permission for No Deal and this the EU cannot be held to account.
If he stays, or goes, and the GE fails to return a Tory/BP majority then in effect No Deal is off the table.

maynooth_rules

Faisal Islam on twitter thinks its a given that a 'rebranded' NI only backstop will be agreed by the UK. DUP not needed so will be thrown under bus. Unionists will be angry, but NI business and majority of population in favour. It was always going to be the only acceptable deal

Strazdas

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Faisal Islam on twitter thinks its a given that a 'rebranded' NI only backstop will be agreed by the UK. DUP not needed so will be thrown under bus. Unionists will be angry, but NI business and majority of population in favour. It was always going to be the only acceptable deal

It's the one thing that could get the UK out of the EU by Oct 31 and with a deal.

interlocked

Faisal Islam, Peter Foster and Tony Connelly(obviously) are going to come out of the Brexit debacle with hugely enhanced reputations. They're just islands of intelligence in a sea of stupidity.

prawnsambo

interlocked wrote: »

Faisal Islam, Peter Foster and Tony Connelly(obviously) are going to come out of the Brexit debacle with hugely enhanced reputations. They're just islands of intelligence in a sea of stupidity.

I'd add Ian Dunt to that list.