Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

brickster69

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Varadkar just called the UK a small country on the BBC's main evening news.

They won't like that :pac:

What, a nuclear superpower, global leader in financial services and near 3 TRN economy. Not to mention equal to the lowest 19 EU states combined.

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

What, a nuclear superpower, global leader in financial services and near 3 TRN economy. Not to mention equal to the lowest 19 EU states combined.

...for the moment!

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

What, a nuclear superpower, global leader in financial services and near 3 TRN economy. Not to mention equal to the lowest 19 EU states combined.

Yes, compared to the EU and the US and China the UK is a small player. Or are you going to try and tell us that the UK compares in size and strength with those 3?

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think Varadkar's recent UK rhetoric is an attempt to row back on the damage done by the RIC/DMP issue by appearing less sympathetic to the UK's position post Brexit.

Wait until they realise there's an election over here .

A FF - SF coalition is extremely unlikely but it would be nice see how UK politicians would react if asked about that possibility with relation to our veto.

Sam Russell

The UK have at least made a reasonable choice of negotiator - Liz Truss - no, not her, she will have no part despite being trade secretary. No, David Frost.


Brexit adviser David Frost to lead UK trade negotiations with EU

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/27/brexit-adviser-david-frost-to-lead-uk-trade-negotiations-with-eu

CelticRambler

brickster69 wrote: »

What, a nuclear superpower, global leader in financial services and near 3 TRN economy.

Or not:

56% of [245 senior officials from asset management, banking and other financial firms from across the world] regard the US financial capital as the world’s most important money hub, up 33 percentage points over the past two years. Only 33% see London as the foremost global financial hub, down more than 20 percentage points over the past two years.

“It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that three years of uncertainty since the Brexit vote has contributed to London’s fall,” said Monique Melis, the managing director at Duff & Phelps.

Both New York and London are set to lose ground over the next five years, with Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai expected to achieve the biggest growth, the survey showed.

Just 22% predicted London would still be the biggest financial centre in five years’ time, the survey showed.

Source

Spanish Eyes

The hubris of the UK never ceases to amaze me.

All we here can hope for now is damage limitation to our economy and trade.

Vlad was correct saying what he did about UK today.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Surprising that only 8,000 appear to be employed in the British fishing industry:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0127/1111145-uk-finance-sector-ready-to-wave-brexit-white-flag/

Not really.

There's too many boats chasing too few fish.

Allow stocks to build up and you could take the same amount of fish with fewer boats working fewer hours.

Voyager has a crew of 13 and 52% of Northern Ireland's quota.

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, compared to the EU and the US and China the UK is a small player. Or are you going to try and tell us that the UK compares in size and strength with those 3?

The EU is not a country. It is a trade block of nations, which is about to become significantly smaller and weaker on Friday. Then all trade deals the EU have will have to be re-negotiated with it's few partners.

brickster69

CelticRambler wrote: »

Or not:

Source

Yeah, i saw that on Sky news today. The presenter did make the point that 75% of those who voted were from the US

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

The EU is not a country. It is a trade block of nations, which is about to become significantly smaller and weaker on Friday. Then all trade deals the EU have will have to be re-negotiated with it's few partners.

Care to quote where it is stated all trade deals will need to be renegotiated? I haven't seen reports of this anywhere.

As for the EU becoming significantly weaker, I guess it depends on your definition of significant. I will grant you in terms of security you have a case. But in economical terms the $2.8b GDP is only a small part of the larger $18.2b of the EU. Not so small to be sniffed at, but I have confidence the EU will be able to persevere and survive.

First Up

brickster69 wrote:

The EU is not a country. It is a trade block of nations, which is about to become significantly smaller and weaker on Friday. Then all trade deals the EU have will have to be re-negotiated with it's few partners.

Yes, a few tweaks can be expected - standard procedure and something the EU does (and is equipped to do) all the time as trade relations evolve around the world.

Not sure about the "few" partners though; who are they missing?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/tory-mp-andrew-rosindell-bans-french-and-german-wine-from-brexit-celebration-party-1-6484867

A Conservative MP has banned French and German wine from his constituency's Brexit celebration party on Friday, allowing only drinks from Britain and the Commonwealth.

We still have a week left of this to get through

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

Care to quote where it is stated all trade deals will need to be renegotiated? I haven't seen reports of this anywhere.

But in economical terms the $2.8b GDP is only a small part of the larger $18.2b of the EU. Not so small to be sniffed at, but I have confidence the EU will be able to persevere and survive.

What so like 16 %

First Up

brickster69 wrote:

What so like 16 %

16% is enough to notice but a lot less than the 53% of its imports and 45% of its exports that the UK trades with the EU.

Bit cynical

brickster69 wrote: »

What so like 16 %

The EU doesn't really need other countries to trade with since it already runs a large trade surplus with itself!

briany

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier reiterates in Belfast that the WA requires customs checks between NI and GB - hardly news, one would think, but the Guardian seem surprised:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/27/customs-checks-needed-on-irish-sea-trade-after-brexit-eu

EU to UK: You agreed to customs checks in the Irish sea.

UK to EU: No, we didn't. We had our fingers crossed behind our back when we signed up for that.

EU to UK: That's not how treaties work.

UK to EU: Yes it is.

Getting the UK to abide by the terms of the WA is going to be a bit like getting Kevin the Teenager to wash the car.

brickster69

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU doesn't really need other countries to trade with since it already runs a large trade surplus with itself!

But it losing 16% of it's trade, 50% of it's security and it takes 10 years to do a deal with F...ing Canada.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

The EU is not a country. It is a trade block of nations, which is about to become significantly smaller and weaker on Friday. Then all trade deals the EU have will have to be re-negotiated with it's few partners.

Where do you pick up this evidently unbearable nonsense. It's quite clear it's done as a windup.

Reads like the comments article under the journal.

No one can actually live in Ireland and believe this sort of guff let alone type it with a straight face.

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

But it losing 16% of it's trade, 50% of it's security and it takes 10 years to do a deal with F...ing Canada.

Will trade stop between the UK and the EU from the 31st December?

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

Will trade stop between the UK and the EU from the 31st December?

It will gradually slow down but not stop.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

But it losing 16% of it's trade, 50% of it's security and it takes 10 years to do a deal with F...ing Canada.

And yet the UK thinks it will get a deal in 10 F...ing months

SantaCruz

brickster69 wrote: »

It will gradually slow down but not stop.

Obviously this will be a withering blow to the EU, but a bonanza for the UK somehow...

black forest

Meanwhile Barnier held a speech this evening at Queens University in Belfast. In this speech he clearly said that the EU will monitor and help to implement the necessary measures for customs and more the UK has to do within this year to fulfill its commitments resulting from signing the NI Protocol.


https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1221898321863827456?s=21


The whole speech here.

It is quite clear what to expect from him and the EU during the coming negotiations. There can’t be any doubts left that there will be custom checks between NI and the UK for goods coming from the UK. For outgoing goods that’s in the discretionary of the UK. Just a few quotes...

Ladies and gentlemen,
Vice-Chancellor,
It is a pleasure to be in Queen's University, Belfast this evening. And it is an honour to deliver the William Clinton Leadership Lecture. It is a sad day for Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with the friends and family of Seamus Mallon. He played a fundamental role in the peace process. He was one of the architects of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. Queen's University shares its motto with the city of Belfast:
“Pro tanto – quid retribuamus”,
“For so much – what shall we give in return?”
...

Together, we enjoyed the trust of:
Former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and, now, President Ursula von der Leyen,
Former Council President Donald Tusk and, now, Charles Michel
27 united Member States,
and the European Parliament, first with Martin Schultz, Antonio Tajani, now with David Sassoli.
With such trust comes a great responsibility: the responsibility to work hand in hand with the elected representatives in the European Parliament, EU leaders in the European Council, ministers and members of parliaments in the Member States. The responsibility to clearly explain our positions to all those affected. The responsibility to engage respectfully with UK negotiators, who represent a great country – one which has been part of the EU for 47 years. We have always stuck to this line: No aggressiveness, no punishment, no spirit of revenge.
...

No frustration or impatience when the House of Commons was unable to agree on what kind of Brexit it wanted. We have always respected the ongoing debate in the UK, and we will continue to do so. Lastly, we had – and we still have – the responsibility to encourage a genuine public debate on Brexit: on how it affects the EU and the UK, and in particular Ireland and Northern Ireland.
This debate hasn't always been easy. But it is important. People must be aware of the consequences. Because it is absolutely clear that there will be negative consequences. UK Chancellor Sajid Javid recognised last week that parts of industry will face a negative fall-out.
...

Whatever agreement we reach on our future relationship, Brexit will always be a matter of damage limitation.
Not one single person – from the UK or elsewhere – has ever convinced me of the added value of Brexit.

Brexit and what it really means...

Brexit is meant to be about ‘taking back control'. But what else does it mean? It means creating trade barriers that do not exist today. The decision to stop free movement means stopping citizens from moving freely between the EU and the UK to study, work or retire. Brexit is about diverging from EU rules. Rules, developed together with the UK, that protect the public interest, guarantee open and fair competition, and thereby allow frictionless trade. Brexit is meant to be about ‘Global Britain'. But, for us, it is the EU that helps make Member States more global. Even without the UK, the EU forms a Single Market of 450 million people – a truly global market. Our economic power allows us to stand proudly on the world stage; To speak with other superpowers as equals on questions such as the economy, climate change, security and trade.
There is no way that any of our countries, alone, could have the same impact. Especially as other economic giants emerge around the world. As you can see in this slide: By 2050, no individual European country can expect to be among the global top five economies. Not the UK. Not even Germany. But together, as you see here, the EU27 will remain in the top 4.
Just a few days ago, Chancellor Merkel compared the EU to a “life insurance” for her country. She recognised that in today's global environment: “Germany is far too small to exert geopolitical influence on its own”. For that, she said, it needs the Single Market. This is why our Single Market is so crucial to us. And yet, in the UK, it seem that many still believe: That they can leave the EU institutions; Leave the biggest trading bloc in the world; Depart from regulations that they helped to put in place; Without experiencing any negative side effects.

Very important the NI Protocol:

The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement cannot be celebrated enough. It was, and still is, indispensable for progress. The Good Friday Agreement allowed, and still allows, the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves as British, or Irish, or both – and be accepted as such. You can choose to be British, Irish, very British with a bit of Irish, more Irish than British, Irish and European, British and European. Others might think of themselves as Northern Irish, or Northern Irish and European. Or, indeed, Northern Irish and anti-European.
This multitude of identities is a distinctive aspect of Northern Ireland.
Similarly, Stormont is not based on the rule of the majority, but on power-sharing and compromise – an essential element of building peace. And indeed, we missed Stormont during the negotiations on Brexit and Northern Ireland. Although I met with Northern Ireland's leaders many times in the last years, the requests were always to meet separately, with one party. Never to meet together. This afternoon, I met with Sinn Fein's Deputy First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, together with the DUP's Economy Minister, Diane Dodds, representing the First Minister, Arlene Foster. So I am very glad to see the Legislative Assembly restored.
...
Very early on in the withdrawal negotiations, both the EU and the UK acknowledged that the situation in Northern Ireland was unique. That it required a specific solution. A solution that was legally operative and could reconcile the many different interests at play, in particular:
1. Avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and preserving the all-island economy in the interest of peace and security;
2. Preserving the integrity of the EU's Single Market, and all its guarantees for consumer protection, public and animal health.
3. Respecting the place of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom's internal market.
Of course, finding common ground was not easy. But the EU was tireless in its efforts.
...
Implementing this new system will be a big challenge, in particular for UK authorities. In agreeing to the Protocol, the UK has agreed to a system of reinforced checks and controls for goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. I understand the fears of negative economic fallout expressed by some about these checks. But Brexit unfortunately has consequences that we must manage. The UK has chosen to become a third country; to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union;
to leave behind the EU's framework of common rules, common supervision and common Court of Justice. It has chosen to create two regulatory spaces. This makes frictionless trade impossible. It makes checks indispensable. We will need sanitary and phyto-sanitary checks on food products and live animals. The EU must be able to assess risks on any product coming into its market and, if necessary, activate physical controls. These checks must take place somewhere. And as the whole point of the Protocol is to avoid a hard border and protect the all-island economy, it was clear that they could not take place at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The only real option was to use Northern Ireland's other entry points. This is also where such checks are the easiest to implement. And controls will also take place in Dublin and other EU entry points.
...
It is now the EU and the UK's joint responsibility to make this agreement work on the ground.
The EU takes this responsibility very seriously. And let's be clear: We have been creative and flexible in finding a workable solution. But this is a detailed legal text. Now is the time to implement it precisely. The Withdrawal Agreement must be applied with rigour and discipline by all sides. It cannot be re-opened under the guise of implementation. We will be monitoring its correct application very carefully.

Clear words what the UK has to expect this year to get any kind of deal. All is dependent from the grade of alignment which can be agreed.

In our joint Political Declaration on our future relationship, the UK agreed that we need common standards to avoid unfair competitive advantages.
So when it tells us it does not want to align with EU standards and regulations in the future, it is not clear to me where, or by how much, it wishes to diverge: on standards relating to the safety and quality of products? Or on those relating to fair competition?
It is not clear to me whether, when the UK leaves the EU and the Single Market, it will also choose to leave Europe's societal and regulatory model. That is the key question, and we are waiting for an answer. Because that answer will be key for our future relationship. I hope that our UK friends are reflecting carefully on this issue. Because the UK cannot expect high-quality access to our Single Market if it insists on competing on State aid, social or environmental standards. I would not want to be misunderstood: Competition between our economies is not a bad thing. Countries compete with each other, also within the Single Market. But competition needs to be based on common high levels of standards to make sure it is fair.
Once again, the UK is faced with a choice. Our ambition – the EU's ambition – is to create a close economic partnership: One that is based on a level playing field.That is the only way we will be able to achieve a truly ambitious deal.
A deal that that benefits both sides.
A deal that is fair for our workers, for our taxpayers, our businesses and for the planet.
A deal that – even if it will never match what we have now
– lives up to our ambition to remain the best of friends and allies.
And of course, an ambitious partnership cannot be limited to trade, but must also cover our internal and external security and defence policy.

There is a lot more in this speech. Please read it yourself.

It will be interesting to see something comparable coming from the UK. But my hopes for seeing something substantial from their side is not very high. In fact Barnier just put all the pieces of the WAB, the NI Protocol and the coming consequences of Brexit very precisely together. Maybe this speech will give food for thought for a few people in the UK and beyond.

 

moon2

brickster69 wrote: »

The EU is not a country. It is a trade block of nations, which is about to become significantly smaller and weaker on Friday. Then all trade deals the EU have will have to be re-negotiated with it's few partners.

Hold on a second here.The EU population is about 500 million. The UK population is about 66 million.

You believe that the EU, as a trading body, is going to become significantly smaller and weaker because it's losing about 14% of it's consumer base. As a result it's trade agreements will have to be renegotiated in order to appease it's (relatively) stronger partners.

By that very same logic, what do you think will happen to the UK when it loses 86% of the consumer base it used as leverage for trade?

listermint

If this doesn't show you what a poison well the UK media is... I don't know what does. I mean we all know this goes on but never hear it


https://twitter.com/changed_gear/status/1221944199458828289?s=20

looksee

There's something seriously wrong when, in a democratic country, a newspaper magnate can threaten a Prime Minister like this.

Well it certainly would not happen in a non-democratic country. Surely democracy suggests that anyone can put any argument to a prime minister? But at the same time it does not follow that the argument has to be - or should be - followed through and accepted, as apparently it was not in this case.

johnnyskeleton

brickster69 wrote: »

But it losing 16% of it's trade, 50% of it's security and it takes 10 years to do a deal with F...ing Canada.

1) the EU will still trade with the UK, just on less favourable conditions;
2) what 50% of security do you mean?
3) it took Canada 53 years to agree a free trade agreement with the US, and a further 6 years to turn that into the NAFTA. So 10 years is a pretty good achievement

Sam Russell

looksee wrote: »

Well it certainly would not happen in a non-democratic country. Surely democracy suggests that anyone can put any argument to a prime minister? But at the same time it does not follow that the argument has to be - or should be - followed through and accepted, as apparently it was not in this case.

There is a significant difference between an opinion and a threat. This was clearly a threat.

Democracy does not thrive under such threats, as is evidenced by what followed in the UK when lies and illegal funding managed to achieve what was threatened.

looksee

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is a significant difference between an opinion and a threat. This was clearly a threat.

Democracy does not thrive under such threats, as is evidenced by what followed in the UK when lies and illegal funding managed to achieve what was threatened.

And if it were a threat (threat to what? Personal safety?) then there should be consequences. Its arguable that Murdoch was simply stating fact in saying that his newspapers would not support current government thinking, in the same way that other newspapers would support it. Ideally all newspapers would be completely neutral, but that will not happen with a free press.

Whether one individual should have so much power in reporting and controlling the news is another matter. I do not agree that individuals should have that much power, but that is not this argument. However the power is divided up it should be possible for a newspaper to say 'this is what we believe and this is what we will support'.

I do not agree in any way with Rupert Murdoch or support his opinions, and he should be called out, and in a robust democracy his argument will get no further than it did. But in a democracy he should be able to make his argument. The 'threat' was simply that he would not support the government; there could be times when this would be the good thing. Just think if he had not supported Johnson.