Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But what markets is the UK aiming for exactly? Unless it plans to get a plethora of smaller ones then it's going to have to make a significant trade off and the result will be the same regardless as I alluded to above.

Maybe, but the food tastes better when it tastes like Freedom!

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well domestically yes, but wouldn't the UK be aiming to get into the more foreign markets, same as Ireland has done. So aim for a higher value market.

Don't ask me how they intend to do it, nothing was stopping them in the past, but needs must I suppose.

It took from 1996 until October to get China to allow British Beef back in after the whole mad cow thing.


And that's all gone again if a cow so much as sneezes.

Leroy42

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It took from 1996 until October to get China to allow British Beef back in after the whole mad cow thing.


And that's all gone again if a cow so much as sneezes.

If anybody finds out about it! It isn't just regulations that get in the way its independent checking.

Any new system will be entirely controlled by the government of the day. They have shown themselves happy to attack the judiciary, HoL the EU, the media, the BBC, the speaker.

Threaten to cut funding to a regulator won't even be a second thought.

WomanSkirtFan8

Leroy42 wrote: »

If anybody finds out about it! It isn't just regulations that get in the way its independent checking.

Any new system will be entirely controlled by the government of the day. They have shown themselves happy to attack the judiciary, HoL the EU, the media, the BBC, the speaker.

Threaten to cut funding to a regulator won't even be a second thought.

Exactly. It'll all be a question of whetehr or not people in the UK will be able to simply survive from day to day post=brexit.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

That was not a brain fart. It was a deliberate and planned intervention.

IMO, they are trying to scare the EU, looking at getting them to give in on certain things to pull UK back closer. Hence all this talk of starting US trade negotiations first. Its all a power play to try to make the UK have some bargaining power.

I'm sorry Leroy but I just don't see it: what, exactly, can they scare the EU27 about, on the back of burning down UK Plc to the foundations as Javid proposed?

Kindly enlighten me?

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm sorry Leroy but I just don't see it: what, exactly, can they scare the EU27 about, on the back of burning down UK Plc to the foundations as Javid proposed?

Kindly enlighten me?

I don't know, I asked that very question a few pages back. I honestly have no idea what they are playing at.

Form the most basic POV, I think they are trying to create a leverage in the idea that should the EU not give them what they want then they will side with the US.

But that fails to take into account that even the US using that tactic has never worked in the past so why would the UK make any difference? But it is in the only thing I can think of as to why.

They are constantly taking about relationship and close friends and trust etc, and then straight away talk about how terrible the EU is, how they could never agree to anything and there can be no agreements.

Seth Brundle

June Mummery Brexit Party MEP proves that the Brits didn't know what they were voting for...

https://twitter.com/june_mummery/status/1219267050574618626?s=19

SantaCruz

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't know, I asked that very question a few pages back. I honestly have no idea what they are playing at.

Form the most basic POV, I think they are trying to create a leverage in the idea that should the EU not give them what they want then they will side with the US.

But that fails to take into account that even the US using that tactic has never worked in the past so why would the UK make any difference? But it is in the only thing I can think of as to why.

They are constantly taking about relationship and close friends and trust etc, and then straight away talk about how terrible the EU is, how they could never agree to anything and there can be no agreements.

I do find it interesting that they are happier playing Tonto to the US's Lone Ranger when the US really just does what it wants and just demands of the UK whatever suits it at a given time. You'd think that an influential role in the EU would be more appealing that donning a gimp suit and taking whatever comes your way from the boss, but there you go.

ThePanjandrum

timetogo1 wrote: »

Hasn't that been the case since before the referendum.
I remember hearing "Easiest trade deal in history", "they need us more than we need them", "of course we'd never leave the single market" etc. etc. from senior ministers. You would hope they'd have been more informed / educated than they seem to be.

They're flip flipping around constantly. The bigger surprise for me is that 48% of the UK population don't seem to care.

All this is ending up doing is making the EU look like they have to deal with a bunch of clowns so nobody is in any doubt as to who to blame.
(Well in the UK they'll blame everybody else, including us, but after 31st Jan nobody outside the UK will care who they blame).

Did you actually hear

“But of course we want to come to a full and comprehensive deal with the European Union. Why? Because it’s good for the people of Britain and it’s good for our economy and it’s good for the consumers and it’s good for the workers of Europe and their economy. If you think about it, the free trade agreement that we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.”

“The only reason we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics.”

SantaCruz

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Did you actually hear

'Unless politics will get in the way of economics' he said, as if that was an unusual thing.

In the context of the Brexit referendum. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the lack of insight.

Rjd2

Shelga wrote: »

The line “some men just want to watch the world burn” springs to mind...

Nah I think he is a technocrat if anything.

Someone who believes if the EU was to carry on its current path it will be swallowed up by nationalists . He loathes the likes of Le Pen and to a lesser extent Farage...however he also knows to get anything done he needs someone like Boris with his brand of populism.

I'd be shocked if he had much time for Boris and its known he dislikes the ERG bar Baker who he likes on a personal level.

His preferred government structure would be one that resembles a panel of experts more so than a democracy we are so familiar with.

SantaCruz

Rjd2 wrote: »

Someone who believes if the EU was to carry on its current path it will be swallowed up by nationalists .

Not sure how this would work, given that the nationalists are the ones who want to tear the EU down, and it's the post-nationalists who realise we'll have a better future pulling in the same direction.

farmchoice

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm sorry Leroy but I just don't see it: what, exactly, can they scare the EU27 about, on the back of burning down UK Plc to the foundations as Javid proposed?

Kindly enlighten me?

from day 1 the brexiteers have based all their thinking on one thing, the EU export more to the UK than vice-versa.
therefore when it comes to it the EU will do anything to retain this massive market, Italian pasta makers, french cheese producers, Spanish wine producers Irish beef farmers and of course German car manufacturers will pressure their governments into securing free access to the UK. in turn these governments will turn on the EU bureaucrats and force them to concede to the wish of the governments (french and German in particular).


they see anything else as the EU cutting off its nose to spite its face, and whilst they as brits make have the gumption to do just that the lily livered Europeans are too soft to engage in that kind of self harm, so they will capitulate.



the reason they did not capitulate the last time was that May and parliament were not prepared to show the EU that the UK was deadly serious about shooting itsself in the head.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm sorry Leroy but I just don't see it: what, exactly, can they scare the EU27 about, on the back of burning down UK Plc to the foundations as Javid proposed?

Kindly enlighten me?

They can't. That's the point but it seems to be the only way forward that they can perceive. It also helps Johnson impress the Brexiters and sets him apart from his predecessor in that he is being perceived to be getting Brexit done.

The EU aren't going to budge on this basis. Their primary concern is reconciling each of the 27 member states' aspirations for a trade deal and then getting it ratified. Once that happens, it'll be set in stone.

Ultimately, the only people who will be scared are those with businesses here who might think a bit more seriously about relocating.

Call me Al

farmchoice wrote: »

from day 1 the brexiteers have based all their thinking on one thing, the EU export more to the UK than vice-versa.
therefore when it comes to it the EU will do anything to retain this massive market, Italian pasta makers, french cheese producers, Spanish wine producers Irish beef farmers and of course German car manufacturers will pressure their governments into securing free access to the UK. in turn these governments will turn on the EU bureaucrats and force them to concede to the wish of the governments (french and German in particular).


they see anything else as the EU cutting off its nose to spite its face, and whilst they as brits make have the gumption to do just that the lily livered Europeans are too soft to engage in that kind of self harm, so they will capitulate.



the reason they did not capitulate the last time was that May and parliament were not prepared to show the EU that the UK was deadly serious about shooting itsself in the head.

I agree with your sentiments.

They are hoping to generate internal Eu friction for the FTA negotiations, and this (be it reality or fiction it won't matter to the readers) is what will adorn the "domestic-consumption" headlines of the Express and Daily Mail for the next year.

They will rely on the fact that British electorate largely don't know a while lot/anything about how FTA negotiations work and that they have never been the dealmakers in Brussels . Equally that they don't understand that this is bread and butter stuff for the EU.

johnnyskeleton

An interesting thing I discovered a few years ago is that some banks, when a mortgage loan goes into arrears of more than say 3 months, they write it off on their books as a bad debt. Anything they recover is a positive i.e. a bad debt recovered asset. Thus, at the time they finalise the account, if they sell the house for 300k but it is still 100k less than the loan value, they don't consider that a loss of 100k at that time, they consider that a gain of 300k at the time, having previously already lost 400k.

I mention this because it is a prudent way of doing business. I hope that, come the 1st February, the EU will no longer be thinking that the UK market is still part of the EU and that any reduction in trade will be a "loss" to them. They will write off the UK as a full trading parter on the 1st February, and if the negotiations during the transition period result in a favourable deal, that will be a benefit at the time.

So I hope that the EU will approach the negotiations on that basis - that they have already lost the UK as part of the single market, and so need to build it up again from scratch. They won't mourn the loss of the UK from the EU and compare the future trade deal against the UK being a member of the EU, they will look at the UK as a third country and consider any reduced tarrifs to be a benefit.

brickster69

Looks like more EU firms are moving to the UK than leaving.

https://www.cityam.com/over-1000-eu-financial-firms-planning-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3WJ_bZzfZftG6SAiioZCdpnFDHUIq-1Mwy6SFKpRWkHfnt5taVeuvnFYM

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

Looks like more EU firms are moving to the UK than leaving.

https://www.cityam.com/over-1000-eu-financial-firms-planning-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3WJ_bZzfZftG6SAiioZCdpnFDHUIq-1Mwy6SFKpRWkHfnt5taVeuvnFYM

Did you read the article? They're not moving, they're opening offices which makes sense.

reslfj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

....
I hope that, come the 1st February, the EU will no longer be thinking that the UK market is still part of the EU and that any reduction in trade will be a "loss" to them. They will write off the UK as a full trading parter on the 1st February, and if the negotiations during the transition period result in a favourable deal, that will be a benefit at the time.

So I hope that the EU will approach the negotiations on that basis - that they have already lost the UK as part of the single market, and so need to build it up again from scratch. They won't mourn the loss of the UK from the EU and compare the future trade deal against the UK being a member of the EU, they will look at the UK as a third country and consider any reduced tarrifs to be a benefit.

The EU27 negotiators and indeed all rational decision makers will consider the past as 'sunk costs' and only look at benefits and costs in relation to the future.

This will among other things include an assessment of how much the UK will buy from the EU/EEA anyway (WTO), how much the EU27 will likely need to buy from the UK anyway and how much the EU27 will likely gain anyway from UK business and businesses moving into the EU27's SM.

"Once upon a time..." is how Fairy Tales for kids begins, and Brexit is nothing like that.

Lars

PS! It will also be (politically) rational for EU27 to be even more restrictive with fishing rights for 5 rich families with big quotas, with Aron Banks, JRM and others that voted for Brexit to provide themselves with a personal gain.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Did you read the article? They're not moving, they're opening offices which makes sense.

Which rather flys in the face of claims financial institutions are leaving the UK-brexit isn't black and white as sometimes portrayed here-the EU has trade agreements with the majority of non EU countries and there is no reason not to have a deal with the UK if the UK is as impotent and no threat to the EU as frequently claimed here.

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

Which rather flys in the face of claims financial institutions are leaving the UK-brexit isn't black and white as sometimes portrayed here

EU financial institutions are opening offices in the UK to serve their UK customers because they think barriers are going to go up.

the EU has trade agreements with the majority of non EU countries and there is no reason not to have a deal with the UK if the UK is as impotent and no threat to the EU as frequently claimed here.

The EU have been perfectly willing to make a deal with the UK since day 1. Barnier showed them a powerpoint slide with all the possible deals spelled out on it back in 2017.

We are still waiting for the UK to pick a deal, and they are still threatening to leave without one for some reason or other.

brickster69

RobMc59 wrote: »

Which rather flys in the face of claims financial institutions are leaving the UK-brexit isn't black and white as sometimes portrayed here-the EU has trade agreements with the majority of non EU countries and there is no reason not to have a deal with the UK if the UK is as impotent and no threat to the EU as frequently claimed here.

Exactly. Last week a banking representative in Frankfurt said that he expects the banking industry to have less staff at the end of this year than before Brexit.

quokula

Was just reading that they're currently passing a bill through parliament for the UK government to cover the lost CAP payments to farmers during the transition period. I didn't realise that was something that was ending before the end of the transition. Are there any other changes to be expected at the end of January?

And have I misunderstood, or does this mean that for 2020 the UK are continuing to pay in, but no longer getting any of the payments they normally receive back?

Leroy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Exactly. Last week a banking representative in Frankfurt said that he expects the banking industry to have less staff at the end of this year than before Brexit.

Because of Brexit?

seamus

brickster69 wrote: »

Looks like more EU firms are moving to the UK than leaving.

https://www.cityam.com/over-1000-eu-financial-firms-planning-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit/?fbclid=IwAR3WJ_bZzfZftG6SAiioZCdpnFDHUIq-1Mwy6SFKpRWkHfnt5taVeuvnFYM

Lies, damned lies and statistics

"By October last year 1,441 EU-based firms had applied to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for temporary permissions to operate in the UK after Brexit, according to figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request from regulatory consultancy Bovill."

This is an application for a licence for a company to do financial business inside the UK. Legally this will require a UK presence because the UK is no longer part of the EU, so they cannot just trade inside the UK from Germany under the auspices of the German regulator.

To say that "1,000 firms are moving into the UK" is disingenuous, because it implies they're moving a portion of their entire worldwide business to London, which they're not. They're merely looking to continue doing business with UK customers. This will have the effect of increasing the cost of doing business for those UK customers.

The vast majority of these 1,400 companies will be holding companies or other such scenarios where a small office of 20 or 30 people serve as the UK base for 100 different companies, and all the paperwork is proxied between the UK and HQ via this office.

brickster69

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because of Brexit?

Yes just 600 overall. However they have reduced a lot more with Deutche Bank moving out of investment banking. but that is not really Brexit related.

Leroy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes just 600 overall. However they have reduced a lot more with Deutche Bank moving out of investment banking. but that is not really Brexit related.

And many jobs have moved out of the UK in the same time period?

brickster69

seamus wrote: »

Lies, damned lies and statistics

"By October last year 1,441 EU-based firms had applied to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for temporary permissions to operate in the UK after Brexit, according to figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request from regulatory consultancy Bovill."

This is an application for a licence for a company to do financial business inside the UK. Legally this will require a UK presence because the UK is no longer part of the EU, so they cannot just trade inside the UK from Germany under the auspices of the German regulator.

To say that "1,000 firms are moving into the UK" is disingenuous, because it implies they're moving a portion of their entire worldwide business to London, which they're not. They're merely looking to continue doing business with UK customers. This will have the effect of increasing the cost of doing business for those UK customers.

The vast majority of these 1,400 companies will be holding companies or other such scenarios where a small office of 20 or 30 people serve as the UK base for 100 different companies, and all the paperwork is proxied between the UK and HQ via this office.

So 30,000 extra jobs will be created, on top of the 30,000 more jobs that have already been created since Brexit.

brickster69

No more silly quips please.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EU financial institutions are opening offices in the UK to serve their UK customers because they think barriers are going to go up.



The EU have been perfectly willing to make a deal with the UK since day 1. Barnier showed them a powerpoint slide with all the possible deals spelled out on it back in 2017.

We are still waiting for the UK to pick a deal, and they are still threatening to leave without one for some reason or other.

I disagree with brexit but also disagree with the claim the UK is powerless-its true the EU has the upper hand in negotiations if the UK is committed to some kind of deal under any circumstances-that,rightly or wrongly doesn't seem to be the case- I'd like to see the UK adhering to EU food and health and safety regulations but don't see the UK kneeling to the EU to secure a deal.This then potentially brings the prospect of a hard brexit with the UK either sinking without trace or doing fine on it's own which would be noted by other countries.
On the other hand it may be prudent of the EU to keep the UK close,retaining some degree of control over regulations.-(A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush etc...)