Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the EU simply morphed into a larger version of the UK, with Westminster in complete control, Brexit would not even be a thing.

Exactly. Arguably the UN has a much greater power over the UK in terms of their territorial sovereignty* ; their migration policy** ; their military*** and their fishing (total amounts of fishing, rather than the nationality of those carrying out the fishing) **** than the EU does.

Unlike the EU, the UN has no democractically elected parliament, and although each country can select it's own representatives or even send their President/Prime Minister etc, the UN General Assembly typically consists of unelected Bureaucrats.

Further, the selection of the leader of the UN is done in conjunction with the Security Council. The Security Council is 5 permanent members who have been fixed for all time as the US, USSR(Russia), China (prev ROC, now PRC), UK and France. Any one of those unelected members can veto any proposal.

Logically, if they really objected to unelected bureaucrats where some countries hold disporportionate sway over others, which passes laws that affect the UK's laws and borders (though, to be fair, not their money), then they should leave the UN.

But they don't. Because they have veto power and get to lord it over the other countries. If Ireland and the UK had a dispute and brought it to the EU, there is as much a chance that Ireland would win as the UK, and it would all depend on who had the stronger argument. In the UN, Ireland could never beat the UK. Indeed, despite over a hundred nations voting against the UK in the Chagos Islands dispute, the UK and its 5 supporters still win out because of their enormous power from the security council and their ability to simply ignore the UN General Assembly.

So yeah, you're dead right. The UK, meaning primarily England, wants the EU to be undemocratic, and they want to be the ones imposing their will on the others. The fact that it is as democratic as it is possible to be in the circumstances is the greatest source of ire for them.



* Chagos Islands dispute etc
** the UN pact on Global Migration from Morocco in 2018 which the extremist anti-migrant pro-Brexit people seem to blame on the EU; and the UN Charter on the Status of Refugees, 1951; etc
*** UK has participated in (I understand) 68 peacekeeping missions as part of the UN, and is the fifth biggest contributor to their military operations budget. While I know it isn't a like for like comparison, this document says their contribution to EU common security is 2.3% of the total;
**** https://www.un.org/Depts/los/ocean_compact/SGs%20OCEAN%20COMPACT%202012-EN-low%20res.pdf

Zubeneschamali

Good article here about how the UK asserting the right to diverge will immediately incur costs even if they do not in fact diverge at all.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

The best path for the UK in regards to regulations could be to agree to at least match the EU standards-I've read recently that the UK has already rejected the idea of chlorinated chicken and as you say,UK food standards are pretty decent anyway.
The problem probably arises with the idiots who don't want to be seen as taking orders from the EU even though what is being proposed is the best way forward-ie:uncompromising high standards in regards to food and the environment. Fracking is pretty much frowned upon here by the general population with the exception of the fat cat energy companies.

Agree to match the standards means you are not bound by the rules at all i.e. the trade deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

RobMc59

Strazdas wrote: »

Agree to match the standards means you are not bound by the rules at all i.e. the trade deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market, whether for goods or services.

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

PeadarCo

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

The thing is from an Irish point of view and EU point of view that would be great. You would get the deal done very quickly.

However from the UK point of view its far worse than EU membership. The UK would be signing up to everything the EU parliament and commission agree on in add to accepting ECJ rulings. From a business perspective it would be great. But remember the whole point of Brexit was to "take back control". Given that most Brexiters ignored the control and influence the UK had as part of the EU I imagine most will kick up a storm if they were agree to your proposal. As your proposal means the UK losing complete control.

Again from an Irish point of view it would be absolutely fantastic if the UK did agree as it would potentially mean no change in the status quo from an economic perspective. I just don't see your proposal being accepted by the majority of UK MPs as much as I like your idea.

MrMusician18

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

That is of course unless they don't want a deal with anyone, leaving the country ripe for the picking

johnnyskeleton

If anyone still thinks that the UK will be able to get an even sided (or even UK favouring) trade deal with the US, they might want to consider the following:

July, 2019 British Ambassador to the US resigns due to pressure from Trump

Jan, 2020 US refuses UK request for extradition of the wife of a US citizen who the US helped to flee the UK.

Obviously the Harry Dunn case was very sad and legally complicated by issues of diplomatic immunity, but it is increasingly clear that the US whims send the UK quiverring, and the UK legal requests are easily swatted away.

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

No, no, no - you've got it all wrong. The US will give the UK a great deal because reasons ...

An Ciarraioch

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

Interesting move and turbulent times.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

I think the only acceptable deal to the EU would be one where the UK signs up to the rules as part of the trade deal. Anything about "agreeing to follow" the rules would suggest that Britain was already planning on acting the eejit in future.

Ribs1234

Did I read today that the uk is already diverging on the copy right laws coming soon? The point is not whether you think that the laws are good or bad, but that divergence is there before the ink is dry on the WA.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

johnnyskeleton

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Bit cynical

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Well I think what will end up being agreed eventually will be something along the lines of the Canada deal. The precise sectors covered under the agreement will be the subject of negotiations. But it is likely to be a comprehensive free trade deal. It won't be the same as Canada because the trading relationship between the EU and Canada is not the same as between the EU and the UK. What is mutually beneficial in a EU-Canada deal is not the same as what is mutually beneficial in a UK-EU FTA. The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK ...

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

The simplistic answer might be "financial services" but that goes against the stated and implied ambitions of the EU to "take back control" of the financial services industry, so a UK government that refuses to sign up to (e.g.) full GDPR regulation, or indicates that it'll happily hand over every byte of data to the Americans if asked, or can't quite promise to share information on Russian oligarch's money laundering activities in London ... well, that'll all be used by the EU as a good reason to prolong the negotiations sufficiently to replicate at home whatever key services have, to date, been provided by the third-country UK.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

In principle, of course, nothing. But then you have to ask yourself what is the point of any trade deal or for that matter trading bloc or customs union? Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

That proximity also presents a proportionately greater risk to the EU's SM if the UK defaults on its responsibilities - Exhibit A: the UK's negligence in respect of unlawful Chinese imports.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

That proximity also presents a proportionately greater risk to the EU's SM if the UK defaults on its responsibilities - Exhibit A: the UK's negligence in respect of unlawful Chinese imports.

However this seems to be a fairly widespread problem in the EU not just the UK bit of it.

The last few months have seen a dramatic rise in the scale of fraud in Asian textiles. For Czech customs administration spokesman, Jiří Barták, “All the indications are that Asian dealers are using the Czech Republic as a hub for products illegally entering European Union’s single market which allows for the free circulation of goods.”

Chinese gangs got it made in Europe

The UK, in their negotiations, will need to ensure that Chinese goods illegally imported into the EU are not subsequently re-exported to the UK.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

You'll find that the vast majority of those efficiencies relate to producing something, something tangible. Geography, geology and climate can make it unreasonably costly and impractical to bring production "home". That's where the financial services industry is different: money these days moves through fibre-optic cables from computer to computer. As I've remarked before, we don't need a Singapore-on-Thames because any of use already have easy access to Singapore-just-Singapore if we want it.

As for other services - well, that'll depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications as a first step, and require an EU office as a second. While there may indeed be some UK based individuals/companies who provide a superior and/or most cost-effective service than their EU counterparts, how long is that likely to continue? Why trade with a third-country, non-Schengen UK when you could call on an equivalent provider from Switzerland?

Other than the right kind of fish, this key question still remains unanswered: what unique product or service does the UK have to offer that the EU cannot get elsewhere, something that would justify getting a "good" deal?

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You'll find that the vast majority of those efficiencies relate to producing something, something tangible. Geography, geology and climate can make it unreasonably costly and impractical to bring production "home". That's where the financial services industry is different: money these days moves through fibre-optic cables from computer to computer. As I've remarked before, we don't need a Singapore-on-Thames because any of use already have easy access to Singapore-just-Singapore if we want it.

As for other services - well, that'll depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications as a first step, and require an EU office as a second. While there may indeed be some UK based individuals/companies who provide a superior and/or most cost-effective service than their EU counterparts, how long is that likely to continue? Why trade with a third-country, non-Schengen UK when you could call on an equivalent provider from Switzerland?


Other than the right kind of fish, this key question still remains unanswered: what unique product or service does the UK have to offer that the EU cannot get elsewhere, something that would justify getting a "good" deal?

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

The divergence over time bit makes this one of the most dificult trade deals to negiotiate. Current alignement is worthless if there is no commitment to continuing alignment.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

The EU can, at its own descretion, allow UK based services to continue to operate within the EU. As such the EU need not fear a sudden switch off as it is within its power to allow continued access to financial services, under its own terms. This will only happen where there is an advantage to the EU from allowing it, and can be revoked at any time which will create a damaging uncertantity on the UK side prompting businesses reliant on the EU market to consider relocating to the EU.

Exemptions made in such a circumstance will not be part of a trade off with the UK, they will be unilateral EU measures. As such those areas where facilitation is needed by the UK but not the EU will see the UK denied facilitation causing significant damage to the UK position.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The divergence over time bit makes this one of the most dificult trade deals to negiotiate. Current alignement is worthless if there is no commitment to continuing alignment.

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

In the absence of agreement on continued alignment then existing alignment counts for nothing.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

Exactly: that's why Johnson's Dec 2020 sudden-death deadline is irrelevant. The EU can - as Imreoir2 points out - cherry-pick those aspects of UK business to which it grants continued access to the SM ... until it decides it doesn't want/need to. This gives the UK absolutely nothing, which means that they'll still need to reach medium and long-term agreement for trade in every other area. For that reason, it'll be the EU that sets the agenda, with an extension to the transition period as the starting point.

As of next week, Britain is giving up control on just about every aspect of its relationship with the rest of the world, and especially with the EU.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

... Which means a mixed deal which must agreed by national parliaments which cannot be done in a year.

As regards any form of deal, the UK is nearby while Canada is far away. The UK - and the EU- are bound by the laws of economic gravity/distance - it is more important that the EU demand higher standards from the UK for even relatively similar deals to those granted to others.