Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Gerry T

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Johnsons deal is significantly different to May's deal in terms of what it means for GB post transition. Under May's backstop the entire UK would have remained aligned to the EU to prevent a hard border in Ireland untill some other arangement was agreed.

In terms of the WA itself and the issues the WA is supposed to address they are very much the same, but in terms of what they indicate for the direction of travel, they are night and day. May's deal indicated a close relationship with the EU for the whole UK, Johnsons deal indicates a much harder Brexit and much greater divergance for GB.

Not really, the backstop only applied to NI and not the whole UK, the backstop would only kick in at the end of the transition period if an alternative arrangement couldn't be agreed. At that point there would be a border down the sea and NI remaining in the SM/CU.
The concession the EU gave to the UK was for the whole of the UK to remain in the SM/CU during the transition period. So how is that so different to Johnson's deal, a subtle difference and post transition is the important part.

Igotadose

Brexit bill 2d reading passes Commons: 330 for, 231 against.

CelticRambler

This kind of carry-on is not likely to smooth the way to a "deep and comprehensive" deal:

The British government has been accused of “behaving like a bunch of cowboys” after a confidential report revealed it had allowed illegal copying of an EU database.

Following [visits by EU inspectors to 22 sites, including Metropolitan police HQ, Heathrow airport and the Folkestone checkpoint] in November 2017, the EU concluded that British authorities had made “unlawful” full or partial copies of the SIS database. The report said “major deficiencies in the legal, operational and technical implementation of SIS” in the UK that had not been remedied, despite concerns first raised in 2015. The litany of problems pose “serious and immediate risks to the integrity and security of SIS data”.

I think this might be the kind of situation that forces GB to accept that it's not such an important player in the game after all. Up to now, all kinds of silliness, arrogance and rule-bending has been dealt with "in-house" - as it is for other member states - for the sake of the greater, long-term good of the Union. Once GB is out, though, transgressions such as this are far more likely to result in the quick flick of a switch, or a much tighter deadline for resolving the problem (=compliance with EU-dictated rules) - rather like the way the EU deals with Switzerland's occasional tantrums.

Imreoir2

Gerry T wrote: »

Not really, the backstop only applied to NI and not the whole UK, the backstop would only kick in at the end of the transition period if an alternative arrangement couldn't be agreed. At that point there would be a border down the sea and NI remaining in the SM/CU.
The concession the EU gave to the UK was for the whole of the UK to remain in the SM/CU during the transition period. So how is that so different to Johnson's deal, a subtle difference and post transition is the important part.

The Backstop did apply to the whole UK. If alternative arangements had not been agreed by the end of the transition period then the entire UK would have been within the backstop and there would not have been any border in the Irish sea under May's deal.

That is the major change in Johnsons deal, it changes this to exclude GB from the backstop creating a border in the Irish sea and allowing GB to diverge more from the EU.

Gerry T

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Backstop did apply to the whole UK. If alternative arangements had not been agreed by the end of the transition period then the entire UK would have been within the backstop and there would not have been any border in the Irish sea under May's deal.

That is the major change in Johnsons deal, it changes this to exclude GB from the backstop creating a border in the Irish sea and allowing GB to diverge more from the EU.

Sorry you right, that's just refreshed my memory

fly_agaric

CelticRambler wrote: »

This kind of carry-on is not likely to smooth the way to a "deep and comprehensive" deal:


I think this might be the kind of situation that forces GB to accept that it's not such an important player in the game after all. Up to now, all kinds of silliness, arrogance and rule-bending has been dealt with "in-house" - as it is for other member states - for the sake of the greater, long-term good of the Union. Once GB is out, though, transgressions such as this are far more likely to result in the quick flick of a switch, or a much tighter deadline for resolving the problem (=compliance with EU-dictated rules) - rather like the way the EU deals with Switzerland's occasional tantrums.

Thanks for that. The bould Clare Daly gets a mention and all:

Calling for an inquiry, an Irish independent MEP, Clare Daly, highlighted concerns from the commission that “other member states have challenges in this area”. She said: “I think the commission needs to come clean about how bad things actually are.”

Spanish Eyes

Brexit is off the radar now for sure. Well the Express and Sun have said nothing so it must be ok. They seem to run the UK more than the elected reps, and it was ever thus.

BUT will be interesting to see what happens moving forward.

Lots of chatter on UK websites saying EU is the dictator.

Was always going to be thus. But let us see what happens. Compromise and Brino is my view anyway.

McGiver

Imreoir2 wrote:

You are entirely correct. Mr Johnson to date has taken a hardline course. Opinions that he might change tack are not based on evidence, as you say his track record suggests that he will go for a hard Brexit. These opinions are based on the evidence but rather on an analysis of the options open to Mr Johnson. The fact is that Mr Johnson now has the option to change tack and there is little his more hardline supporters could so to stop him if he does make that choice. The question is will he change tack, and what might make us think he will?

It's not that complicated. The evidence is very simple - who pays him and who are people closest to him. Oligarchs (US, Russian, British) and hard right ideologues, charlatans, lunatics.

Imreoir2

McGiver wrote: »

It's not that complicated. The evidence is very simple - who pays him and who are people closest to him. Oligarchs (US, Russian, British) and hard right ideologues, charlatans, lunatics.

Other questions to be included on that list is, to what extent does he need those people now? Do they have any hold on him other than his former need of their support to get into power? He does not need them to get into power now, he is already there, does he need them to hold onto power? I don't really think so. That does not mean that he certainly will change course, just that he can. His decision to do so will very much depend on what is easiest for him and what helps him hold onto power longest.

I think there are now as many if not more reasons that make changng tack more in his interest than holding to a hard line. Time will tell.

Leroy42

Because when you rely on others to get you into power, you are well aware that they can turn their attention to somebody else if you don't toe the line.

The vitriol directed at TM was quite the turnaround from the Iron Lady Mk II headlines she had gained at the start of her term as PM.

brickster69

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

Christy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

Err they are saying they might think of possibly expanding because no deal is off the table. As opposed to the fact Brexit is definitely (well maybe) going to happen.

timetogo1

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

Does saying there's "potential to expand" = "planning to expand"?

There's always potential I'd have thought.

ambro25

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

Little else than a change of PR tack by Airbus, moving from 'Brexit is bad' to 'alright lads, let's see how good you're going to make this' and putting the onus firmly on Johnson's government to deliver the promised sunlit uplands.

Reminds me of PSA's nicey-nice PR when they bought Vauxhall.

Call me Al

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see some companies planning to expand now Brexit is certain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51047264

"Some companies" you say brickster?
The article is about one company. One.

Enzokk

Call me Al wrote: »

"Some companies" you say brickster?
The article is about one company. One.

And the warning is still implicit, it will now focus on the future trade deal and this will in the end determine what happens.

Mr Faury, who took up his role in April, said in his speech: "While global uncertainty won't end with the UK's withdrawal from the EU, Brexit is, at least, now for certain."

Speaking at the Airbus New Year reception, Mr Faury added: "But the nature of the future relationship between the UK and EU is still to be determined.

"Airbus is committed to the UK and to working with the new government on an ambitious industrial strategy.

"We see great potential to improve and expand our operations in the UK this year."

So instead of hoping to stop Brexit, the focus now is to try and influence the future FTA and the carrot is there. If the FTA terms are favourable then future investment opportunities will exist. But anyone that thinks that just because Brexit will happen but a distant future relationship that will increase costs for Airbus will lead to more investment is not thinking straight.

Gerry T

timetogo1 wrote: »

Does saying there's "potential to expand" = "planning to expand"?

There's always potential I'd have thought.

Jesus, so Airbus UK is closing down, that's what happens when senior management come out and say, don't worry lads, nothing to see here.

I think the author of that airticle is stretching the story way pasts it's elastic point. Nothing has changed, Airbus uses JIT and needs to sell into the EU tariff free with free mevement of employees. Once Johnson the great delivers those in his deal then Airbus will stay.

Edit: Oh and regulatory allignment, don't forget that Johnson

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

Airbus uses JIT and needs to sell into the EU tariff free

The EU are proposing no tariffs, no quotas, no dumping.

Not sure if this is enough to allow JIT to continue, and of course Johnson won't like No Dumping rules, so unlikely to get No Quotas.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU are proposing no tariffs, no quotas, no dumping.

Not sure if this is enough to allow JIT to continue, and of course Johnson won't like No Dumping rules, so unlikely to get No Quotas.

Beyond tariffs and quotas, the burning question for Airbus and a few more manufacturers (particularly vehicles) is whether the (eventual) UK-EU FTA will bork rules of origin, as these permeate their end products.

There's a warehouse-full of powder that Airbus (and Nissan-Renault, and BMW, and...) is keeping dry, here.

But that's expert-grade discussion territory (relative to the baseline Leaver awareness and perception), just like the burning question of access to EU markets for UK services post-Brexit which peaked a bit in news and MSM this morning (4 years after some of us drew attention to the inevitable, in that particular context), so don't expect much mainstream commentary about these yet.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU are proposing no tariffs, no quotas, no dumping.

Not sure if this is enough to allow JIT to continue, and of course Johnson won't like No Dumping rules, so unlikely to get No Quotas.

Tariffs are only a small barrier to trade, delays at borders are more with product declarations, quality etc.. this will have a greater impact on JIT. Plus the UK won't get zero tariff access without having to give something in return. It remains to be seen if the UK has the flexibility and wit to conduct such discussions. The past 3 yrs wouldn't leave you holding much hope.

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

It remains to be seen if the UK has the flexibility and wit to conduct such discussions. The past 3 yrs wouldn't leave you holding much hope.

If it goes the way it has been going, they will bluster a lot and then take the EU deal at the last minute, meaning they accept the level playing field provisions and get access with no tariffs, no quotas.

brickster69

Gerry T wrote: »

Tariffs are only a small barrier to trade, delays at borders are more with product declarations, quality etc.. this will have a greater impact on JIT.

Makes you wonder how the rest of the world trades with the EU without being in a Customs Union.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

Makes you wonder how the rest of the world trades with the EU without being in a Customs Union.

The EU dictates the rules. My friend.

brickster69

listermint wrote: »

The EU dictates the rules. My friend.

Correct, regarding EU members. But regarding trade WTO dictates the rules

Dictating is quite a good description BTW.

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

Correct, regarding EU members. But regarding trade WTO dictates the rules

Dictating is quite a good description BTW.

Only when theres no other trade deal in place....

Of 135 non-EU full members of the World Trade Organisation, 58 currently trade with the EU under negotiated trade terms, and another 47 have preferential access to EU markets.

Also by your own patheticly veiled implication the wto is somehow now also a dictatorship controlling the UK?

Gerry T

brickster69 wrote:

Makes you wonder how the rest of the world trades with the EU without being in a Customs Union.

Most of the world trades under FTAs, that take decades to agree and their second class to a block like the EU. But I'm sure you know that, just choose to ignore it.

brickster69

VinLieger wrote: »

Only when theres no other trade deal in place....

Of 135 non-EU full members of the World Trade Organisation, 58 currently trade with the EU under negotiated trade terms, and another 47 have preferential access to EU markets.

Also by your own patheticly veiled implication the wto is somehow now also a dictatorship controlling the UK?

It is true what i said that the WTO dictates global trade rules that all nations must abide by.

How many of the 105 nations have full allignment with the EU ? None

SantaCruz

VinLieger wrote: »

Also by your own patheticly veiled implication the wto is somehow now also a dictatorship controlling the UK?

Not for long. Presumably this will be the next windmill the lunatic fringe/disaster capitalists will start tilting at. Who tells England what to do? NOBODY

Nody

brickster69 wrote: »

It is true what i said that the WTO dictates global trade rules that all nations must abide by.

How many of the 105 nations have full allignment with the EU ? None

Actually WTO don't dictate any rules at all on global trading standards; all WTO states is that no nation can be given more favorable access over another OUTSIDE a FTA etc. WTO states zero rules beyond that to follow so in fact of the 105 nations every single one trade on full alignment with EU rules because not a single piece of equipment is allowed into EU that does not meet EU regulation and standards. But then again; that does not make a snappy reply on the glories of Brexit does it when every single piece send from UK will have to meet EU regulatory standards; the only question which is part of the trade deal is how high of a percentage of controls does UK want on the goods they send to the EU? It starts at 100% checks at the border and goes down based on how aligned UK wants to be but 100% of it will be aligned to EU regulation & laws. Oh and in case you missed it WTO also allows for tariffs for unfair competition; hence UK can lower the standards of worker rights etc. and EU has the right to protect itself by raising tariffs on UK goods to counter the unfair support; and since Trump has blocked the judges in WTO UK has no one to appeal any tariffs EU decides to set to either; oops...

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

It is true what i said that the WTO dictates global trade rules that all nations must abide by.

How many of the 105 nations have full allignment with the EU ? None

I am a little confused what point you are trying to make. How does this relate to the WTO and what point are you trying to make?