Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

SantaCruz

Thargor wrote: »

Probably just more noise but you would have thought this would have been a bigger story

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/johnson-to-impose-full-customs-checks-on-goods-from-eu-report

I think if we've learned anything, it's that you can safely ignore anything coming our of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth that is the UK government these days.

Judge by their actions, not their words.

Professor Moriarty

Thargor wrote: »

Probably just more noise but you would have thought this would have been a bigger story

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/johnson-to-impose-full-customs-checks-on-goods-from-eu-report

I think that's just sabre-rattling. No country could be that foolish...

GM228

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that's just sabre-rattling. No country could be that foolish...

No doubt many have said the same about the UK leaving the EU and some choices it has made.....

You really just don't know what they are willing to do.

Professor Moriarty

GM228 wrote: »

No doubt many have said the same about the UK leaving the EU and some choices it has made.....

Exactly. It's not like dead-in-a-ditch Johnson is a proven liar.

Peregrinus

Johnson has been saying for months now that he will not extend the transition period beyond 31 December 2020, and in an attempt to persuade people that he is on this occasion telling the truth he has even written this into the UK's domestic legislation.

If that's true, then he can only achieve a very limited, bare-bones trade deal by the end of the transition period. There simply isn't time to negotiate and ratify anything more.

And, given that, signficant border controls at the UK/EU frontier are inevitable.

So one of the reasons this particular story may not have got huge traction early on is that it comes as no surprise to the EU. If you take seriously what Johnson has been saying up to now, then what is reported here just merits a big "well, duh". The Daily Telegraph broke this story, as the Guardian report acknowledges. The Telegraph's headline was "Johnson ramps up pressure on EU". But in fact Johnson wasn't telling the EU anything that they hadn't already worked out for themselves.

briany

Gintonious wrote: »

Barnier, right?

That's what I thought, but reading a bit more it appears that Barnier will be 'overseeing' the FTA, while Hogan will be the actual one heading up negotiations.

Not to question Hogan's abilities as a negotiator, but I would have thought keeping on with the same personnel would have been wiser, especially since they've proven quite adept so far.

SantaCruz

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Telegraph's headline was "Johnson ramps up pressure on EU". But in fact Johnson wasn't telling the EU anything that they hadn't already worked out for themselves.

It seems he's threatening the EU that he'll shut down the entire UK automotive industry.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

Johnson has been saying for months now that he will not extend the transition period beyond 31 December 2020, and in an attempt to persuade people that he is on this occasion telling the truth he has even written this into the UK's domestic legislation.

If that's true, then he can only achieve a very limited, bare-bones trade deal by the end of the transition period. There simply isn't time to negotiate and ratify anything more.

And, given that, signficant border controls at the UK/EU frontier are inevitable.

So one of the reasons this particular story may not have got huge traction early on is that it comes as no surprise to the EU. If you take seriously what Johnson has been saying up to now, then what is reported here just merits a big "well, duh". The Daily Telegraph broke this story, as the Guardian report acknowledges. The Telegraph's headline was "Johnson ramps up pressure on EU". But in fact Johnson wasn't telling the EU anything that they hadn't already worked out for themselves.

I read an article about countries using WTO rules whilst trading with the EU-can any country use WTO rules?

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

The very holding of the referendum was a catastrophic mistake but yes, once the blasted thing had been held, the UK was in an awful political mess with no easy way out.

It was a non-
binding referendum.


The could have also delayed until they got the public to agree on what sort of Brexit they agreed upon.

How many voters voted for May's red lines ?
How many voted for Brexit In Name Only ?


And we still don't know what sort of compromises will be needed to get a deal.




Next year there will be a lot of "this isn't what I voted for"

Capt'n Midnight

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If it's the same size as a 50p, the weight in fine gold would probably account for half the value just as scrap.

14.2 grams of gold , half an ounce in real money, or about £600

Apart from the cost of the metal they shouldn't cost more than 50p to make :P

biko

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It was a non-binding referendum.

Yes, at the time. But the British government respected the wishes of the voters and made it happen.

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

I read an article about countries using WTO rules whilst trading with the EU-can any country use WTO rules?

In theory

In practice All 164 WTO members have better access to at least one market either through a free trade agreement or through duty-free preferences for developing countries.

EU tariffs on some dairy products are 189% so even if the UK exported them at zero cost, even if they then paid importers to take them off their hands, they would still cost more than imports from places with a real Free Trade Agreement.

Margins on cars are 4-6%
WTO tariffs on cars are 10%


Rules Of Origin mean most UK cars don't qualify as UK cars so trading under WTO rules is a red herring because those UK exports aren't covered by the rules used in most FTA's.

Capt'n Midnight

biko wrote: »

Yes, at the time. But the British government respected the wishes of the voters and made it happen.

Hardly since we still don't know the wishes of the voters.

biko

Did you miss the election where the Tories won by a landslide?
With Boris "Get Brexit Done" at the helm?

briany

biko wrote: »

Did you miss the election where the Tories won by a landslide?
With Boris "Get Brexit Done" at the helm?

The British GE didn't really prove that a majority of voters were in favour of Brexit, although it did prove that there was enough pluralities around the country to ensure a strong Conservative majority on the message of getting Brexit over the line.

When you look at the vote share of the 2019 UKGE, the Conservatives did not get a majority of the vote share throughout the country. It's still hard to say, though, what the overall mood of the country was re:Brexit. For instance, how many Labour voters voted that way based on their promise that they would undertake Brexit, albeit in a way that would allegedly be better for the working man and woman? How many Conservative voters voted Remain, but still went Con because they were fed up with the whole thing / wanted to respect the vote / thought the WA was a sane end to things?

wexfordman2

biko wrote: »

Did you miss the election where the Tories won by a landslide?
With Boris "Get Brexit Done" at the helm?

Did you miss the fact that a referendum result is entirely and wholely different that a GE ?

Did you not get a grasp on the difference between what happens to your vote in a referendum as opposed to a GE, particularly with the UK voting system?

brickster69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In theory

In practice

Margins on cars are 4-6%
WTO tariffs on cars are 10%

So what you are trying to say is every car that has 10% tariffs going into the EU is making a loss ?

If a car has a margin of 4-6% and has a tariff of 10% then the sale price has to raise by about 15% to make the same profit.

Sam Russell

brickster69 wrote: »

So what you are trying to say is every car that has 10% tariffs going into the EU is making a loss ?

If a car has a margin of 4-6% and has a tariff of 10% then the sale price has to raise by about 15% to make the same profit.

Or they must be made cheaper - by lower wages, higher productivity, etc.

GM228

SantaCruz wrote: »

It seems he's threatening the EU that he'll shut down the entire UK automotive industry.

The idiom "to cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

A Dub in Glasgo

biko wrote: »

Did you miss the election where the Tories won by a landslide?
With Boris "Get Brexit Done" at the helm?

The landslide was achieved by gaining just under 44% of the vote

brickster69

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The landslide was achieved by gaining just under 44% of the vote

Yes, and the party who came second wanted to remain neutral on Brexit and the other parties wanted to cancel it. Give or take 2 or 3 % = landslide

Strazdas

biko wrote: »

Did you miss the election where the Tories won by a landslide?
With Boris "Get Brexit Done" at the helm?

I think the reason people accepted that Brexit would go ahead is that Johnson has enough MPs in Parliament to implement the result (and Parliament is sovereign).

But that is not the same thing as saying a majority of the electorate in 2020 are in favour of Brexit (they aren't).

A Dub in Glasgo

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, and the party who came second wanted to remain neutral on Brexit and the other parties wanted to cancel it. Give or take 2 or 3 % = landslide

Therefore 56% did not vote for the landslide you refer

GM228

And the point to note (weather we want to call it a landslide or not is not really relevant) is that 44% is not a majority in terms of people's wishes on Brexit and that is the point made regarding the difference between a referendum and GE.

brickster69

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Therefore 56% did not vote for the landslide you refer

So 44% voted for a party to leave. 30% votes for a party who did not know what they wanted and 27% voted for parties to remain. The other 3% was BXP & DUP

GM228

brickster69 wrote: »

So 44% voted for a party to leave. 30% votes for a party who did not know what they wanted and 27% voted for parties to remain. The other 3% was BXP & DUP

44% is still less than a firm majority giving a clear indication in Brexit, also people vote in a GE based on many different factors as opposed to a referendum which is specific, people will vote out of loyalty, or past experience, not necessarily the promises made. You also need to remember that part of the 44% may also be influenced by the so-called bandwagon effect and has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit promises.

BarryD2

Likely already pointed out but a good reflective article by Ian McEwan today https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-pointless-masochistic-ambition-history-done

How the Brits have deceived and screwed themselves. How English Nationalists and Tories have dragged them down and likely will pull us under the bus as well.

And by extension, why we should be very wary of our brand of divisive Republican Nationalism on show in this country..

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The very holding of the referendum was a catastrophic mistake but yes, once the blasted thing had been held, the UK was in an awful political mess with no easy way out.

It would be like holding an advisory and ill defined referendum on breaking up the UK and abolishing the monarchy i.e. it could only be followed by total chaos if voted for.

Well certainly from the point of view of Cameron, it was a mistake and he paid for it with his career. His intention was for the UK's position in the EU to be secured for a long time through a strong vote to remain, but of course that did not happen.

brickster69

GM228 wrote: »

44% is still less than a firm majority giving a clear indication in Brexit, also people vote in a GE based on many different factors as opposed to a referendum which is specific, people will vote out of loyalty, or past experience, not necessarily the promises made. You also need to remember that part of the 44% may also be influenced by the so-called bandwagon effect and has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit promises.

You are in denial. We will see what % Varadkar gets soon.:D

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

You are in denial. We will see what % Varadkar gets soon.:D

Completely different system - people can vote for five or six different parties if they want (which totally sways how people vote and what the percentages are)