Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Chips Lovell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or he could climb down and repeal this law in June and ask for the extension. His majority would allow it, but I don't know if his pride will.

For internal political reasons, the climb down won't be until the eleventh hour, so we're looking at December next year. The request for an extension will, of course, be blamed on the EU and, if he's lucky, Parliament (providing enough of his own MPs rebel).

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A "no deal" outcome is not optimum for both sides.

Both sides -- moreso the EU than the UK -- would experience some form of harm.

This idea that the EU will "punish" the UK by refusing to talk about trade arrangements, if anything, reinforces the need to leave such an awful institution in the first place.

Who would want to negotiate with that kind of bad faith.

The EU agreed, with Johnson, that a trade arrangement should be done by the end of next year. That's what Johnson and the EU signed up for. If they are now willing to renege on their commitment, then that's their choice. The EU will experience economic damage from that decision.

Johnson and a WTO deal is just fine. There's nothing wrong with that outcome at all.

You've been following this long enough.

You should know well that the EU has priced no deal into it all. Yes of course everyone was hoping for a differeent election outcome and obviously a deal but no deal is priced in. It's been prepared for even here in Ireland.

As for who would want to deal with the EU. Everyone... Where have you been the past decade. The deals signed..... And bad faith ? Mirror... UK mirror.


The jig is up

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

For internal political reasons, the climb down won't be until the eleventh hour, so we're looking at December next year.

Too late, he has to request the extension before July or it's off the table.

Chips Lovell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Too late, he has to request the extension before July or it's off the table.

They'll still give him one. Enforcing the July deadline means they risk looking like the intransigent ones. Nothing to be gained from that.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

They'll still give him one. Enforcing the July deadline means they risk looking like the intransigent ones. Nothing to be gained from that.

There is. The election is done. Playing nice is over. By all means talks can go ahead but if there is no progression Johnson won't be given any assistance to make himself look great to a baying audience.

Dytalus

Deleted User wrote: »

Precedent shows that, where possible, the EU will always, always extend -- and parliament will always, always approve of said extension.

Demonstrably false - you have it backwards. Until now, Parliament had to request the extension, and the EU had to approve it. The EU could not unilaterally extend the exit date without a written later from the Prime Minister.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given past and future preparations, I have no doubt that the UK will weather a WTO exit.

Of course they'll 'weather' it. It won't be enough to collapse the country. But it wil, due to the sudden placing of tariffs and customs checks, have a sizable impact on importing and exporting for the UK.

Trading on WTO terms is not favourable to a country - there's a reaosn nobody does it. The UK will survive - but it will likely be scarred in doing so.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's up to the EU to decide whether they want favourable terms with the UK.

The EU is the larger market - the UK will be seeking favourable terms with them, as usually happens with trade deals. Trade of goods with the EU accounts for 8% of the UK's GDP, vs 2.3% of the EU 27's GDP, even though the UK runs a deficit on goods trading. It only looks worse for the UK when it comes to services, for which the UK runs a trade surplus while also being a significantly smaller economy.

As 80% of the UK's GDP is based on services, that's a pretty big risk to be taking. Trade in services along accounts for 21% of their GDP.

Joe_ Public

See no reason why they wont extend around November time if both sides want it. But if the uk were to start mucking around again with its no deal brinkmanship, eu caving at the last second and all the other usual nonsense, then can easily foresee growing eu appetite to cut a very basic trade deal and run.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

There is. The election is done. Playing nice is over. By all means talks can go ahead but if there is no progression Johnson won't be given any assistance to make himself look great to a baying audience.

There is absolutely no need for the EU to play hardball like this. Johnson may be many things, but he's not an idiot, and so won't exit on WTO terms. The status quo, where the UK remains a de-facto member of the single market in the short to medium term, suits the EU just fine. They have no incentive to force the UK out.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for the EU to play hardball like this. Johnson may be many things, but he's not an idiot, and so won't exit on WTO terms. The status quo, where the UK remains a de-facto member of the single market in the short to medium term, suits the EU just fine. They have no incentive to force the UK out.

In fact, indefinitely maintaining the transition period is probably the best outcome for them in the medium term. The UK surrenders its rebate, veto and often odious MEP's while staying in, paying for the privilege and playing by the rules.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for the EU to play hardball like this. Johnson may be many things, but he's not an idiot, and so won't exit on WTO terms. The status quo, where the UK remains a de-facto member of the single market in the short to medium term, suits the EU just fine. They have no incentive to force the UK out.

They will play hardball without a doubt if Johnson carries his hard man domestic talk into 2020.

They have every incentive at this point to deal with his agrressive tone. Economic activity is the great leveller. And the EU will want to show the likes of orban what's what.

As I said already the honeymoon period is past

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

They will play hardball without a doubt if Johnson carries his hard man domestic talk into 2020.

They have every incentive at this point to deal with his agrressive tone. Economic activity is the great leveller. And the EU will want to show the likes of orban what's what.

As I said already the honeymoon period is past

The EU has always prized pragmatism and common sense above all else. Taking a hit just to shut Johnson up serves nobody. If the British public are so desperate for Brexit that they'll happily and eagerly be lied to then that's their business. Orban knows that his country is a net drain on the EU. He won't be leaving.

This way, the EU can get on with its climate change plan and its other issues without the British interfering because they feel the need to cosy up to China or some other world power.

Chips Lovell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fact, indefinitely maintaining the transition period is probably the best outcome for them in the medium term. The UK surrenders its rebate, veto and often odious MEP's while staying in, paying for the privilege and playing by the rules.

Absolutely. It's a little unstable, but is essentially a win-win outcome

listermint wrote: »

They will play hardball without a doubt if Johnson carries his hard man domestic talk into 2020.

They have every incentive at this point to deal with his agrressive tone. Economic activity is the great leveller. And the EU will want to show the likes of orban what's what.

As I said already the honeymoon period is past

This is the thing. It is all talk. You don't need to respond to it. The very fact that Johnson will invariably cave again is demonstration enough. They don't need to make an example of the UK. The UK is doing that job for them.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Absolutely. It's a little unstable, but is essentially a win-win outcome



This is the thing. It is all talk. You don't need to respond to it. The very fact that Johnson will invariably cave again is demonstration enough. They don't need to make an example of the UK. The UK is doing that job for them.

Fair way of looking at it I suppose

54and56

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What page of the negotiating strategy handbook does it say that you should ensure that you don't have much time to negotiate a good deal for yourself?
Is there a comparable example of an international trade deal where a country time limited itself and successfully concluded the negotiations?

The EU is under no time pressure - the UK has just handed them an advantage card :rolleyes:

You should only reveal or set a negotiating deadline from a position of strength where your BATNA is a genuinely acceptable outcome.

The UK's BATNA is not a genuinely acceptable outcome unless you've overdosed on the ERG Kool Aid!!

brickster69

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The status quo, where the UK remains a de-facto member of the single market in the short to medium term, suits the EU just fine. They have no incentive to force the UK out.

Do you understand the UK is leaving the EU. This news today is not a threat or anything, it just gives some certainty so everyone knows where they stand at the outset.

Countries who will be wanting to do deals with the UK want to know what relationship the UK will have with the EU. The UK can now say to them we will have a trade relationship that is good for both sides because that has to be the solution.

Neither side want no deal.

First Up

The EU is familiar with governments of member states saying one thing in the privacy of official discussions, while shouting other stuff from the rooftops for domestic consumption.

Nobody minds, and they care even less when a non (or soon to be former) member play local politics.

The EU has dysfunctional and polarised governments in countries all along its eastern borders and has established modalities for dealing with them. A similar basket case on its western edge is no big deal.

Irish border apart, this is an itch to be scratched; little more.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU has always prized pragmatism and common sense above all else. Taking a hit just to shut Johnson up serves nobody. If the British public are so desperate for Brexit that they'll happily and eagerly be lied to then that's their business. Orban knows that his country is a net drain on the EU. He won't be leaving.

This way, the EU can get on with its climate change plan and its other issues without the British interfering because they feel the need to cosy up to China or some other world power.

The EU knows it's all bravado from Johnson. Enshrining this in law is just trying to show he's playing hardball. Whether or not there's an extension is already completely in his power, so this gives him no advantage above the optics it creates. Optics that anyone will see through.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We've already seen some demands on the trade deal which all members must ratify. Of course, Johnson is free to baulk at this but he knows what no deal does to the UK.

I'm not convinced he does ... :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

Precedent shows that, where possible, the EU will always, always extend -- and parliament will always, always approve of said extension.

The EU has three times offered to extend, but it has always been for the UK to ask. And the UK has asked.

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, the UK departs from the EU from Dec. 2020, as promised by Johnson during the election.

Nope - Jan 31st, 2020.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's up to the EU to decide whether they want favourable terms with the UK.

The EU sells more to the UK than the UK does to the EU. It's in both sides interests to sketch out a viable trade arrangement.

You really don't believe in economics, do you? :P The UK will (probably) have left the EU six-and-a-half weeks from now. Everything that comes afterwards will be a version of the UK trying to re-build what they've lost. You seem to have an impressive ability to misunderstand that what the EU sells to the UK the UK buys from the EU, and not out of some sense of European solidarity but because UK customers want to buy EU products that are guaranteed to be of a certain standard.

Now you will, no doubt, argue that these consumers of Irish beef and French cheese and Spanish wine and Italian grapes and German cars and Danish meatballs and Swedish furniture will find them somewhere else. Sure, maybe they will - but if that "somewhere else" happens to be a de-regulated economy where food safety and industrial production standards are "guidelines" more than "rules", then (a) the UK businesses that use these products as part of their supply chain will be excluded from the EU market; and (b) the NHS will have to pick up the tab for the illness and injury caused to the native population by such substandard imports.

Tell us, then, where's the incentive for the EU to offer "favourable terms" to a country whose prime minister has categorically stated that divergence from the EU's standards is one of his Brexit objectives?

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Enforcing the July deadline means they risk looking like the intransigent ones. Nothing to be gained from that.

No-one in the EU cares if the UK say they are intransigent.

It is clear that the UK are going to continue in their fantasy world until reality bites. If that starts Jan 2020, it means they will be back to the table in a more reasonable frame of mind all the sooner.

This was Macron's attitude all along, and he is being proven right.

Zubeneschamali

brickster69 wrote: »

The UK can now say to them we will have a trade relationship that is good for both sides because that has to be the solution.

The UK can say whatever they like, no-one will believe them until the ink is dry on the UK-EU trade deal.

And since the UK needs that badly so they can start talking to other countries, the EU has them by the short hairs.

Shelga

I’m very interested to see what happens to the UK automotive industry, and delighted I no longer work in it.

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Too late, he has to request the extension before July or it's off the table.

Correct. And watching the amusing exchange between John Bercow and Nigel Farage on Sky News on election night, both agreed that this would happen.

First Up

Shelga wrote:

I’m very interested to see what happens to the UK automotive industry, and delighted I no longer work in it.

I suspect you will have plenty of company.

Russman

brickster69 wrote: »

Countries who will be wanting to do deals with the UK want to know what relationship the UK will have with the EU. The UK can now say to them we will have a trade relationship that is good for both sides because that has to be the solution.

Not wishing to be flippant, but that will be a pretty short list unless these countries get very favourable terms.
I mean, out of 35 or 36 countries classified as developed by the UN, 28 are the EU, then there's the US who will absolutely screw the UK in trade negotiations (leaving aside concerns over the GFA), Japan and Canada have shown little interest in dealing with the UK over the EU, Australia and New Zealand are similar. I doubt trade deals with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland will replace what they currently have with the EU.

moon2

brickster69 wrote: »

Countries who will be wanting to do deals with the UK want to know what relationship the UK will have with the EU. The UK can now say to them we will have a trade relationship that is good for both sides because that has to be the solution.

When you say "the UK can now say" do you mean literally that they can state that with confidence today?

If that's what you mean, could you go into a bit more detail about how that can be concluded? Everything I've read has been implying the next round of trade negotiations will take 3-5 years at a minimum. The fewer divergences from the status quo, the faster the deal. For example if the UK were to sign up to a "no effective deviation from the status quo" type agreement then that could be signed off and ratified fastest. Similarly, if they want to change everything it could take a decade to conclude.

serfboard

moon2 wrote: »

if the UK were to sign up to a "no effective deviation from the status quo" type agreement then that could be signed off and ratified fastest.

Given his track record, you'd have to wonder if, after January 31st, Johnson pivots to a BRINO, while still being able to logically say that he had "got Brexit done".

brickster69

moon2 wrote: »

When you say "the UK can now say" do you mean literally that they can state that with confidence today?

If that's what you mean, could you go into a bit more detail about how that can be concluded? Everything I've read has been implying the next round of trade negotiations will take 3-5 years at a minimum. The fewer divergences from the status quo, the faster the deal. For example if the UK were to sign up to a "no effective deviation from the status quo" type agreement then that could be signed off and ratified fastest. Similarly, if they want to change everything it could take a decade to conclude.

It is not me saying that. Both sides have agreed to work together in that time frame.


https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-eu-and-uk-to-launch-talks-on-future-relationship-asap/

For sure, both sides will now work towards a healthy future relationship.

I must say that Johnson's ruling out of an extension is more disappointing than anything else that's happened. I was happy he got his majority but that's been quelled within days.

There's no need for it. Trade deals of this magnitude just don't happen in that timeframe, and instead of letting their civil service work through this stuff amicably over the appropriate time period, it will instead be a political toxic mess.

It does nothing for the relationship and it does nothing for both sides coming to something they're happy with. Trade negotiations will break down very quickly and instead of a pragmatic approach behind doors where each side can make concessions, it will be an us versus them battle with the end of 2020 being the weapon.

Three years? I can get behind that. One year? It's just a load of shlte destined to be all bluster and no detail.

Professor Moriarty

brickster69 wrote: »

It is not me saying that. Both sides have agreed to work together in that time frame.


https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-eu-and-uk-to-launch-talks-on-future-relationship-asap/

For sure, both sides will now work towards a healthy future relationship.

What's a healthy future relationship?

newport2

Deleted User wrote: »

I must say that Johnson's ruling out of an extension is more disappointing than anything else that's happened. I was happy he got his majority but that's been quelled within days.

There's no need for it. Trade deals of this magnitude just don't happen in that timeframe, and instead of letting their civil service work through this stuff amicably over the appropriate time period, it will instead be a political toxic mess.

It does nothing for the relationship and it does nothing for both sides coming to something they're happy with. Trade negotiations will break down very quickly and instead of a pragmatic approach behind doors where each side can make concessions, it will be an us versus them battle with the end of 2020 being the weapon.

Three years? I can get behind that. One year? It's just a load of shlte destined to be all bluster and no detail.

Just playing to his own audience. He'll u-turn/diverge again when it suits him.