Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

briany

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

43% of the people voted Tory. Yet polling shows that people increasingly want to remain. The last 5 polls Nov/Dec average:
54% Remain
46% Leave

The previous 5 polls Sep/Oct averaged:
52% Remain
48% Leave.

Of course that Leave number contains hard and soft Leavers. So, on Brexit, there is clear blue water developing between a large majority of people and this hard Brexit Tory government.

If Remain votes are concentrated in urban centres, then the UK has a problem. The overall population might prefer to Remain, but if we go constituency-by-constituency, a large majority voted to Leave in 2016. Once again, in 2019, a majority of constituencies have voted to leave. This suggests that even if a referendum had never been held, Brexit might still have happened when enough pro-Brexit MPs were returned to the HoC and a simple parliamentary vote were held.

KildareP

Shelga wrote: »

What is he playing at? No alignment with EU, but in the same breath saying a free trade agreement will be done within a year?

But it’s what the people voted for...

Setting up the next round of the blame game.

It's the EU trying to hold the UK in against their will by trying to force a delay and extend beyond Dec 2020.

And it's the EU trying to punish the UK for leaving by not giving all the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without abiding by all of it's rules and regulations.

Pathetically predictable.

briany

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Paisley looks a bit silly arguing against the WA now, and how it will create an impediment to trade between NI & GB.

Nobody in GB cares about a trade barrier with NI. To be honest, they didn't seem to care that much about a hard land border in Ireland either. But now that the DUP are no longer needed, politically, their wishes can be merrily disregarded.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

This suggests that even if a referendum had never been held, Brexit might still have happened when enough pro-Brexit MPs were returned to the HoC and a simple parliamentary vote were held.

Nobody gave a rats about Brexit until Cameron stirred things up by calling the referendum.

If they held a referendum on the death penalty, that would probably pass too, and then we'd have years of them revoking human rights law and becoming a pariah state to try to implement "the will of the people".

First Up

briany wrote:

If Merkel came out and said, "It's Germany, first!" there'd be bedlam among the UK tabloids. But when Trump says it, it's relative crickets. There's an element of hypocrisy there which signifies a rather obvious agenda.

Yeah but that's not the problem. The UK can't have an FTA with both the EU and US. If they want an FTA with the EU, they join the Customs Union and abide by EU rules, including terms with US, China or other countries.

That isn't negotiable.

Christy42

Shelga wrote: »

What is he playing at? No alignment with EU, but in the same breath saying a free trade agreement will be done within a year?

But it’s what the people voted for...

People want it over with so he has to say it will be done soon. They voted to leave so he has to say that they want no alignment. They know a free trade agreement is important for their economy so he has to promise one.

Just don't think about it too hard and it makes sense. Boris is banking on people not thinking too hard about it. And he is probably right.

Who knows what he will do but it likely won't bear resemblance to what he is saying now. That is just for the cameras.

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nobody gave a rats about Brexit until Cameron stirred things up by calling the referendum.

If they held a referendum on the death penalty, that would probably pass too, and then we'd have years of them revoking human rights law and becoming a pariah state to try to implement "the will of the people".

If nobody gave a rats about Brexit, then why did UKIP have seats in the EUP? They were the largest party of the UK delegation in 2014 - a year before Cameron brought out his Brexit manifesto of the 2015 UKGE. Surely this must have suggested a pretty considerable anti-EU sentiment. Not a surprise if you think about the demonisation of the EU by UK tabloids for decades previous.

First Up wrote: »

Yeah but that's not the problem. The UK can't have an FTA with both the EU and US. If they want an FTA with the EU, they join the Customs Union and abide by EU rules, including terms with US, China or other countries.

That isn't negotiable.

Well the UK can have an FTA with the EU and U.S. but it would just take a very long time to fully negotiate this new, nebulous arrangement. Certainly far beyond the mooted year transition period. Canada has an FTA with the EU while also being in NAFTA, but the EU deal took seven years to square.

First Up

briany wrote:

Well the UK can have an FTA with the EU and U.S. but it would just take a very long time to fully negotiate this new, nebulous arrangement. Certainly far beyond the mooted year transition period. Canada has an FTA with the EU while also being in NAFTA, but the EU deal took seven years to square.

And not in effect yet but that is for goods of Canadian origin entering the EU. It doesn't apply to goods of US or Mexican origin coming via Canada.

briany

First Up wrote: »

And not in effect yet but that is for goods of Canadian origin entering the EU. It doesn't apply to goods of US or Mexican origin coming via Canada.

Naturally.

First Up

briany wrote:

Naturally.

So there is no conflict between NAFTA and CETA. But if the UK has an FTA with the US, there would be conflict with a UK - EU FTA.

So goods entering the EU from the UK would require examination to check origin - hence delays.

briany

First Up wrote: »

So there is no conflict between NAFTA and CETA. But if the UK has an FTA with the US, there would be conflict with a UK - EU FTA.

So goods entering the EU from the UK would require examination to check origin - hence delays.

And an EU-UK free trade agreement wouldn't apply to goods of U.S. origin freely moving into the EU, so there shouldn't be any conflict there, either. Switzerland has a rather complicated free trade deal with the E.U. while also being able to have FTAs with other countries besides. This means that it is possible to have your cake and eat it, but you'll need a lot longer than a single year to make it.

josip

briany wrote: »

And an EU-UK free trade agreement wouldn't apply to goods of U.S. origin freely moving into the EU, so there shouldn't be any conflict there, either. Switzerland has a rather complicated free trade deal with the E.U. while also being able to have FTAs with other countries besides. This means that it is possible to have your cake and eat it, but you'll need a lot longer than a single year to make it.

Hasn't the EU said that they would never again agree an a la carte, Swiss style, trade agreement with a 3rd country ?

Nody

briany wrote: »

And an EU-UK free trade agreement wouldn't apply to goods of U.S. origin freely moving into the EU, so there shouldn't be any conflict there, either. Switzerland has a rather complicated free trade deal with the E.U. while also being able to have FTAs with other countries besides. This means that it is possible to have your cake and eat it, but you'll need a lot longer than a single year to make it.

Any country in the world can trade with EU and that's not the cake; what's the cake is the single market access without controls or checks. That in turn requires a country to be aligned with the relevant block (such as in the case of Norway or Switzerland) and this is what Boris says he'll throw away as he and other Brexiteers think UK is big enough to be a standard setter compared to China, EU, USA etc. and that for some reason other countries will align with the UK over the other bigger blocks/markets instead.

You can ask any Canadian company if the new FTA which lowers tariffs will have a significant difference or not; the answer is the paperwork to prove they are compliant is the real issue.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

And an EU-UK free trade agreement wouldn't apply to goods of U.S. origin freely moving into the EU, so there shouldn't be any conflict there, either. Switzerland has a rather complicated free trade deal with the E.U. while also being able to have FTAs with other countries besides. This means that it is possible to have your cake and eat it, but you'll need a lot longer than a single year to make it.

The British have said they don't want to eat any cake that might resemble the recipe the Swiss use. To a large extent, the EU dictates terms to the Swiss and the Swiss say "OK, boss". Free movement of people is a recent example, but also off-piste things like gun control. Remember that eskimo & Co. have insisted that Brexit is about taking back control of all law-making "just because" - regardless of how beneficial (or tangential) to the Sunderland Man's daily life such coordinated EU legislation might be.

The only way this kind of regulatory divergence can make sense is if the Tories are determined to kill off what's left of the UK's manufacturing and agri-food industries. Then they won't have to worry about checks on exports to the EU because they'll import everything.

Or maybe (just maybe) they haven't really thought that far ahead. :rolleyes:

funkey_monkey

Thats a good majority for Boris and Brexit: 358 to 234.

Letwin_Larry

briany wrote: »

Nobody in GB cares about a trade barrier with NI. To be honest, they didn't seem to care that much about a hard land border in Ireland either. But now that the DUP are no longer needed, politically, their wishes can be merrily disregarded.

and Brexit aside that is a good thing.
that any Govt. on these islands could be held to ransom by a small rump, especially a rump like the DUP is a democratic outrage imo.

smacl

briany wrote: »

Nobody in GB cares about a trade barrier with NI. To be honest, they didn't seem to care that much about a hard land border in Ireland either. But now that the DUP are no longer needed, politically, their wishes can be merrily disregarded.

I suspect nobody cares about the barrier that isn't there until that barrier is put in place and then they'll care lots. Don't know if anyone else here remembers the joy of having to organise Carnets moving goods temporarily in and out of the UK. Total ballache and I've quite a few UK clients in the civil engineering side of things starting to get very concerned over this. Same goes for skilled staff where most of the UK companies I'd work with recruit heavily from Southern and Eastern Europe because the local talent simply isn't available at the salaries they're offering, if at all. I reckon that once Brexit starts to seriously interfere with big UK businesses ability to turn a profit, the conservatives will come under some huge pressure and more pragmatic deals will be done.

An Ciarraioch

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Thats a good majority for Boris and Brexit: 358 to 234.

Notable that the NI MPs all voted against.

10000maniacs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

43% of the people voted Tory. Yet polling shows that people increasingly want to remain. The last 5 polls Nov/Dec average:
54% Remain
46% Leave

The previous 5 polls Sep/Oct averaged:
52% Remain
48% Leave.

Of course that Leave number contains hard and soft Leavers. So, on Brexit, there is clear blue water developing between a large majority of people and this hard Brexit Tory government.

Its a lot easier to get 43% than 50.01% in any poll.
The "Get Immigration Done" ..er. sorry.. "Get Brexit Done" slogan worked a treat with those nice voters up north.

Shelga

Is the UK paying the full £39 billion under this withdrawal agreement?

funkey_monkey

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Notable that the NI MPs all voted against.

I didn't see a breakdown, but I would have expected that. Sammy seems to think a that a trade deal could remove a lot of the necessary checks at the sea border and make it virtually invisible but at the minute it is no good for them.

funkey_monkey

Shelga wrote: »

Is the UK paying the full £39 billion under this withdrawal agreement?

I thought this amount has decreased due to payments they've made already?

J Mysterio

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Paisley looks a bit silly arguing against the WA now, and how it will create an impediment to trade between NI & GB.

He always looks silly. He asked Johnson about the 'bridge' today, and was almost laughing himself before Johnson had answered. What a numpty.

MrMusician18

Nody wrote: »

Any country in the world can trade with EU and that's not the cake; what's the cake is the single market access without controls or checks. That in turn requires a country to be aligned with the relevant block (such as in the case of Norway or Switzerland) and this is what Boris says he'll throw away as he and other Brexiteers think UK is big enough to be a standard setter compared to China, EU, USA etc. and that for some reason other countries will align with the UK over the other bigger blocks/markets instead.

You can ask any Canadian company if the new FTA which lowers tariffs will have a significant difference or not; the answer is the paperwork to prove they are compliant is the real issue.

Believe it or not, the EU isn't really large enough to be a standard setter in the globalised world. One of the primary drivers for TTIP was that it would effectively force US/EU standards to become the global ones, instead of Chinese/Indian ones.

J Mysterio

EU set the standards for the EU. The market is big enough and rich enough that other countries deign to manafacture and produce goods to those standards so their product can enter the EU market. That's not rocket science. Of course the EU is a 'standard setter in a globalized world'. It's something that we will not compromise on, thank god.

If the British want to lower their food standards, workers right etc, go nuts, but that shıt will not be sold or tolerated in the EU and will massively limit the market forn UK goods.

You have to be somewhat braindead to think Johnson's government is doing any of this for the right reasons.

reslfj

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

...The U.K. may negotiate something akin to benefits previously held as members, but they will have to offer things in return for same....

The UK is far smaller than the EU27 (between 5 and 7 times smaller) and will have much less leverage as a small 3. country in the negotiations.

The UK will be forced to pay in concessions - in full plus like 10% more for being small plus even more when forwarding stupid demands.

The EU negotiators are absolutely world class - Michel Barnier, Sabine Weyand and trade commissioner Phil Hogan - and includes the teams behind.

Lars

MrMusician18

J Mysterio wrote: »

EU set the standards for the EU. The market is big enough and rich enough that other countries deign to manafacture and produce goods to those standards so their product can enter the EU market. That's not rocket science. Of course the EU is a 'standard setter in a globalized world'. It's something that we will not compromise on, thank god.

If the British want to lower their food standards, workers right etc, go nuts, but that shıt will not be sold or tolerated in the EU and will massively limit the market forn UK goods.

You have to be somewhat braindead to think Johnson's government is doing any of this for the right reasons.

Of course the EU can set it's standards whatever way it pleases but I think you've missed my point. The EU was becoming fearful that a rising China and India could see manufacturers choosing those locations as their primary markets and designing for those markets. The EU would then be left with a smaller cohort of manufacturers willing to choose it's standards and would result in a relative lack of competitiveness. Or in order to ensure plurality in its markets the EU may be forced to lower it's standards.

One of the goals of TTIP was to ensure global dominance of Western standards.

We are looking at the long term here, 30 years down the line. The relative wealth of the EU to the rest of the world is not a given for all time, that position needs to be defended.

J Mysterio

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Of course the EU can set it's standards whatever way it pleases but I think you've missed my point. The EU was becoming fearful that a rising China and India could see manufacturers choosing those locations as their primary markets and designing for those markets. The EU would then be left with a smaller cohort of manufacturers willing to choose it's standards and would result in a relative lack of competitiveness. Or in order to ensure plurality in its markets the EU may be forced to lower it's standards.

One of the goals of TTIP was to ensure global dominance of Western standards.

We are looking at the long term here, 30 years down the line. The relative wealth of the EU to the rest of the world is not a given for all time, that position needs to be defended.

So, your ultimate point is what? The UK should reduce its rights and standards to Chinese levels? Brilliant.

spacecoyote

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Believe it or not, the EU isn't really large enough to be a standard setter in the globalised world. One of the primary drivers for TTIP was that it would effectively force US/EU standards to become the global ones, instead of Chinese/Indian ones.

In relative terms, based on classification as developed economies in the world the list is:

EU:
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia

European (non EU):
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
UK

Others:
Australia
Canada
Japan
New Zealand
United States

So 27 of the worlds 36 developed economies are in the EU. They may not be the biggest economies individually, but as a block, it far outweighs the other nations.

That being the case, I think its pretty safe to assume that there isn't any immediate pressure for another nation to be the standard bearer

reslfj

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

... The EU is not a sovereign entity so i'm not sure what that even means.

Now 'Sovereign' has very little meaning outside the heads of some delusional people. It's and 'emotion word' without much relevance in real world politics.

The EU is its members and operates based on rules - Lisbon, ECJ.
The EU Council and the EU Parliament are giving the directions to and approving the results.

When doing this and following the rules these two institutions are the legal decision makers and the EU is Sovereign - not each member state. In some cases the a common EU decision needs member states to approve/ratify too. But when done it's still a Sovereign EU decision.

The real situation is again the UK is small and weak, while the EU is large and very powerful. The EU has its well working SM and over 60 world class free trade agreements and more new trade agreements coming ever so often - Korea, Japan, Singapore, Mercosul/Mercosur with AU/NZ under negotiation.

Lars