Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

Lemming wrote: »

I've seen a couple of exchanges pretty much word-for-word like that on twitter this morning. Didn't see any comeback arguments in reading through it all. Clearly these people knew exactly what they were voting for except for the bits that they weren't aware they were voting for.

And even if they "knew what they were voting for", what would be to stop them changing their minds?

They have this frankly bizarre notion that to change your mind after voting in a referendum would be totally reprehensible and 'an insult to democracy' (hence every single one of them doubling down on their original vote).

CrabRevolution

There seems to be a belief among some Brexiters that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are about to enthusiastically fall into line as part of an English speaking front, cooperating against the world. They always talk about the UK leading this effort too, never being an equal member.

The fantasy also occasionally includes the USA somehow. Even on this forum we've seen pro brexit posters back up their arguments with "What happens when the USA and UK do blah to the EU?" as if the UK and USA are now in lockstep and equal members of a partnership against the EU.

First Up

CrabRevolution wrote:

There seems to be a belief among some Brexiters that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are about to enthusiastically fall into line as part of an English speaking front, cooperating against the world. They always talk about the UK leading this effort too, never being an equal member.

Australia and New Zealand may retain cultural links with the UK but they have long ago abandoned any notion of sttong economic links. Their present and future are in Asia and their entire strategies revolve around that.

54and56

Excellent speech at the London School of Economics by Ursula Von Der Leyen this morning (who went to college there) basically saying two things to BoJo & Co:-

1. If you insist on an unrealistic time frame of Dec 31st and refuse to extend the scope of what can be agreed will be limited and EU will have to focus on the highest priority items only.

2. The EU is prepared to grant the UK (nice way to re-affirm that the UK is the supplicant in these negotiations) unprecedented tariff and quota free access to the worlds biggest single market for both goods and services providing the UK is prepared to play nice in relation to regulatory alignment and level playing field etc but the more divergent the UK wishes to be from level playing field and regulatory compliance the less access to the EU market it can have.

Well worth a watch.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aKKBXL3RY

Zubeneschamali

54and56 wrote: »

1. If you insist on an unrealistic time frame of Dec 31st and refuse to extend the scope of what can be agreed will be limited and EU will have to focus on the highest priority items only.

Tony Connelly was making this point on RTE this morning, that there is talk in Brussels of splitting the FTA into a must-have-now part and a nice-to-have-later part, and just getting the must-have-now part done this year.

This sounds to me as if it would be very disruptive at the end of 2020, unless they are able to say part A is agreed and part B remains with existing rules until some later date, which would be an extension by another name and anathema to the hard Brexiteers.

Edit: some clips:

Without a level playing field... you cannot have the highest quality access to the worlds largest single market.

The more divergence there is, the more distant the relationship will be.

Without an extension... we will have to prioritize.

We are ready to design a new partnership with Zero tariffs, zero quotas and zero dumping

Unprecedented in scope - ... data protection, fisheries ... financial services, security

So that may be the bait - agree to level playing field/no dumping/little divergence, and we'll give you financial services access.

Diverge, and it'll be goods only - stil no tariffs or quotas for those, but keep your financial services.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tony Connelly was making this point on RTE this morning, that there is talk in Brussels of splitting the FTA into a must-have-now part and a nice-to-have-later part, and just getting the must-have-now part done this year.

This sounds to me as if it would be very disruptive at the end of 2020, unless they are able to say part A is agreed and part B remains with existing rules until some later date, which would be an extension by another name and anathema to the hard Brexiteers.

Thinking about it if part B was to be agreed at a later date, items such as conflict resolution, services etc... the tricky bits. Then the UK for those elements would see the EU staying "aligned" with the EU.
I think for brexiters that would be seen as remaining in the EU, not leaving. I can't see that happening but maybe there is a smart way to make it work. Obviously not a Johnson plan so !

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

Their present and future are in Asia and their entire strategies revolve around that.

Not to mention to mention the practical and pragmatic realities of economic proximity. Trading with your neighbour(s) is far more convenient and less hassle than trying to trade with someone further afield.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

Australia and New Zealand may retain cultural links with the UK but they have long ago abandoned any notion of sttong economic links.

They still remember that the UK cut them off rather badly back when they joined the EU EEC.

An Ciarraioch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tony Connelly was making this point on RTE this morning, that there is talk in Brussels of splitting the FTA into a must-have-now part and a nice-to-have-later part, and just getting the must-have-now part done this year.

This sounds to me as if it would be very disruptive at the end of 2020, unless they are able to say part A is agreed and part B remains with existing rules until some later date, which would be an extension by another name and anathema to the hard Brexiteers.

Edit: some clips:

Without a level playing field... you cannot have the highest quality access to the worlds largest single market.

The more divergence there is, the more distant the relationship will be.

Without an extension... we will have to prioritize.

We are ready to design a new partnership with Zero tariffs, zero quotas and zero dumping

Unprecedented in scope - ... data protection, fisheries ... financial services, security

So that may be the bait - agree to level playing field/no dumping/little divergence, and we'll give you financial services access.

Diverge, and it'll be goods only - stil no tariffs or quotas for those, but keep your financial services.

However, financial passporting for the City of London will end:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1214882193148973056

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

Not to mention to mention the practical and pragmatic realities of economic proximity. Trading with your neighbour(s) is far more convenient and less hassle than trying to trade with someone further afield.

Indeed. Here are Britain's top ten exports (note how many would be dependent on JIT imports from the EU):

Machinery including computers: (14.8% of total exports)
Vehicles: (11.2%)
Gems, precious metals: (9.7%)
Mineral fuels including oil: (9%)
Pharmaceuticals: (6.2%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: (5.9%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: (3.9%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: (3.9%)
Plastics, plastic articles: (2.5%)
Organic chemicals: (2.3%)

As an aside, financial services provide 1.1 million jobs.

Strazdas

From von der Leyen's comments, it seems to be no secret to the EU that Johnson is planning massive divergence from EU rules. She wouldn't be saying this unless the UK had expressly indicated it to them.

CelticRambler

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

However, financial passporting for the City of London will end:

A blow, but not fatal. For context, I found this article from 2016, summarising:

Our analysis concludes that the importance of the passport really depends on the industry. It is relevant in some sectors, but has much less value in others. Put differently, it is exaggerated to claim that the UK’s success as a global financial centre is entirely reliant on the passport—but so is it to suggest that losing it would bear no consequences at all.

Of more concern, I would think, is this statement at the end of the article:

no-one can be absolutely sure that business moving out of London would necessarily pick Paris or Frankfurt or any other European hub over, say, New York or Singapore to relocate.

That obviously works both ways, and is the great unknown of Brexit: the GB economy is heavily dependent on the financial services sector, an "industry" made up of several different products and services. While no one element is critical, losing a bit here (e.g. the EBA) and a bit there (e.g. passporting) and another bit afterwards (e.g. data-sharing), London risks losing its advantage over other hubs - European or not. One could even envisage a scenario where the EU gets around to concluding a deal with Switzerland that makes Zurich a more interesting option for Far East/Far West companies who want a non-EU base in Europe.

Leroy42

Is that VdL's "Brexit means Brexit" speech?

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is that VdL's "Brexit means Brexit" speech?

Love it being thrown back in their faces

Junkyard Tom

So a DUP/SDLP/Alliance HoC bill seeking to guarantee unfettered access to the GB market for NI, post Brexit, has been defeated. It'd be interesting to see which of the DUPs former 'best buds' in the ERG shanked them.

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. Here are Britain's top ten exports (note how many would be dependent on JIT imports from the EU):

Machinery including computers: (14.8% of total exports)
Vehicles: (11.2%)
Gems, precious metals: (9.7%)
Mineral fuels including oil: (9%)
Pharmaceuticals: (6.2%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: (5.9%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: (3.9%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: (3.9%)
Plastics, plastic articles: (2.5%)
Organic chemicals: (2.3%)

As an aside, financial services provide 1.1 million jobs.

The real value to a country is not its total export, but the value added within the country.

A very large part of precious metals are financial gold simply being moved from a UK bank to say a Swiss bank.
The value exported is the gold, but the value added in the UK is just the transport to the airport and the security (next to nothing in economical terms).
(Moving gold into the UK is counted as import, but is in most cases just another form of bank deposits.


Likewise UK assembled cars contains down to just 25% value added in the UK.

Trade statistics can't be read properly without a deep knowledge of the actual business behind the traded goods and services.

Lars

reslfj

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So a DUP/SDLP/Alliance HoC bill seeking to guarantee unfettered access to the GB market for NI, post Brexit, has been defeated. It'd be interesting to see which of the DUPs former 'best buds' in the ERG shanked them.

The DUP and others in NI voting for Brexit were voting more against their stated long term interests (staying in the UK) than any other group in the UK - including farmers exporting, auto workers in the north of England and others that felt 'left behind'.


Lars

CrabRevolution

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So a DUP/SDLP/Alliance HoC bill seeking to guarantee unfettered access to the GB market for NI, post Brexit, has been defeated. It'd be interesting to see which of the DUPs former 'best buds' in the ERG shanked them.

Assuming "unfettered" means no checks or regulations, how was this supposed to even work in theory? It would violate the front-stop agreed in the WA, that NI would be aligned with Ireland.

An Ciarraioch

And the award for the most self-defeating Commons vote goes to:

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1214996118322532353

sondagefaux

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And the award for the most self-defeating Commons vote goes to:

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1214996118322532353

Fecking eejits. The benefits it brings would far outweigh the relatively tiny costs of participation from outside the EU.

sondagefaux

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

However, financial passporting for the City of London will end:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1214882193148973056

The EU can end equivalence, which is far inferior to passporting in any case, for non-EU countries with 30 days notice. Not exactly a stable basis on which to trade.

sondagefaux

CelticRambler wrote: »

A blow, but not fatal. For context, I found this article from 2016, summarising:


Of more concern, I would think, is this statement at the end of the article:

That obviously works both ways, and is the great unknown of Brexit: the GB economy is heavily dependent on the financial services sector, an "industry" made up of several different products and services. While no one element is critical, losing a bit here (e.g. the EBA) and a bit there (e.g. passporting) and another bit afterwards (e.g. data-sharing), London risks losing its advantage over other hubs - European or not. One could even envisage a scenario where the EU gets around to concluding a deal with Switzerland that makes Zurich a more interesting option for Far East/Far West companies who want a non-EU base in Europe.

One thing would be certain: a hitherto London-based business would have left London...

Thargor

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

However, financial passporting for the City of London will end:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1214882193148973056

I wish the EU would go further and just wash its hands of the whole City of London, its a sewer, drug money and corruption laundering capital of the world, what will we lose? A bit of temporary disruption until EU companies step up to meet demand. Id love to see Boris presiding over London and all the other British financial services companies being kicked out of EU markets.

Strazdas

The PM was clear that the UK would not extend the Implementation Period beyond 31 December 2020; and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction. He said the UK would also maintain control of UK fishing waters and our immigration system.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-meeting-with-eu-commission-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-8-january-2020

Straight from the horse's mouth.....at least there's not much room for ambiguity here

listermint

That's fine strangle them with regulation. EU compliance has become defacto nearly the world over.

If they want to create a little Singapore off the coast. Then make sure to have a tight rope on any business looking to operate there.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

That's fine strangle them with regulation. EU compliance has become defacto nearly the world over.

If they want to create a little Singapore off the coast. Then make sure to have a tight rope on any business looking to operate there.

I'm disappointed the UK appears to not want to comply with EU regulations which are reasonable and for everyone's benefit-shows what a bunch of chancers the gullible pro brexit voters have put in power.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm disappointed the UK appears to not want to comply with EU regulations which are reasonable and for everyone's benefit-shows what a bunch of chancers the gullible pro brexit voters have put in power.

They're convinced that complying with regulations means you are 'not sovereign or independent' - they don't seem to have a clue how global trade works.

Bit cynical

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And the award for the most self-defeating Commons vote goes to:

https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1214996118322532353

Well possibly more self-defeating were the successive votes against Theresa May's WA last year led by remainers.

Capt'n Midnight

Psychic Uri Geller applies for Downing Street job after appeal for 'weirdos'

You may laugh but Nancy Regan's astrologer was consulted.

ArthurDayne

Strazdas wrote: »

They're convinced that complying with regulations means you are 'not sovereign or independent' - they don't seem to have a clue how global trade works.

It’s the cognitive dissonance on the whole thing which really gets me. Leavers tell you on one hand that the Brexit vote was a kick in the teeth to the establishment and the London fatcats by the “little people”. They then cheerlead the concept of deregulation which gives the fatcats more power and less accountability, encourages riskier financial behaviour which poses a threat to the interests of the ordinary man, and makes London even more central to the fate of the British economy by hedging on it the hope of a Singapore-Upon-Thames. Where once they criticised London as the lair of the metropolitan liberal elite banker fatcat establishment — they now seek to ensure that these banker fatcats are under even less regulatory obligations against which they can be held accountable.

Yet when the actual businesses themselves say that such a direction is problematic, the Leavers say that this is just the fatcats being annoyed that their gravy train is being disrupted. Yet this is despite the fact that the Leavers also simultaneously want them to build an even bigger gravy train with less necessity to consider the wellbeing of the wider economy thanks to the tearing down of regulation — much of which was brought in following a devastating global economic meltdown in an attempt to protect the very people (I.e. the ‘Little People’) whom poor regulation hurts the most.

So in summary .....the Little People voted to kick the Fatcats and the Establishment in the teeth and from this victory they immediately cheer on the concept of making Fatcattery without Responsibility even easier. It’s just an endless remorseless drone of contradiction.