Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Norton was being poorly managed anyway. Brexit or no they wouldn't have lasted.

That didn't seem to be the case when tory MP's visited them to hand out government grants ans proclaim that Norton was the type of innovative business to lead Britain in a post Brexit world.

And wasn't it these very companies that were being held back by the EU, such that getting out would open up the world to Britain?

And whilst I completely agree that Brexit cannot be anymore that a factor in this, if companies such as them cannot see the advantage soon to come from Brexit it highlights the issue that Brexit appears to have little actual advantage.

gooch2k9

Leroy42 wrote: »

That didn't seem to be the case when tory MP's visited them to hand out government grants ans proclaim that Norton was the type of innovative business to lead Britain in a post Brexit world.

And wasn't it these very companies that were being held back by the EU, such that getting out would open up the world to Britain?

And whilst I completely agree that Brexit cannot be anymore that a factor in this, if companies such as them cannot see the advantage soon to come from Brexit it highlights the issue that Brexit appears to have little actual advantage.

Norton is a good old British brand, Tory MPs supporting them doesn't surprise me in the slightest as majority of Brexit supporters would love to see iconic brands of old resurgent. Any day now The Telegraph will announce British Leyland is back!

There's no benefit whatsoever for automotive companies from Brexit though. I'm in the industry myself and we have seen work gradually reducing over the last year or two.

Leroy42

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Norton is a good old British brand, Tory MPs supporting them doesn't surprise me in the slightest as majority of Brexit supporters would love to see iconic brands of old resurgent. Any day now The Telegraph will announce British Leyland is back!

There's no benefit whatsoever for automotive companies from Brexit though. I'm in the industry myself and we have seen work gradually reducing over the last year or two.

That is being a tad disingenuous though. Companies like Norton were touted as the very ones to benefit from Brexit, free from the protectionist EU and one of the type of products that would be wanted all around the world.

The fact that it was never true is not the point. It was, along with many others, as a reason why the UK didn't need the EU.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They couldn't wait a single day.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1223727509851836418

I'm genuinely curious where the limits of the shtick of blaming the EU for everything are. The UK has left so if there's one positive to be seen from this, it'll be seeing this narrative collapse.

Reading the responses on Twitter though and people are incredulous that Johnson and his right wing press buddies are even going for this angle. There is a lot of pushback against such obvious falsehoods.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

But remember, WTO terms do not circumvent the need to comply with technical requirements. If goods don't meet EU standards, they don't get in.

Import tariffs is the easy bit. Its the "non tariff barriers" that will bite.

It's not only that they need to meet the standards which is fairly straight forward; it's proving that the goods meet the standard in every single shipment which is the real killer. Any business who thought there would be less paperwork is going to be in for a very rude surprise on their first export attempt or heck simply trying to take a sample to a customer in EU.

briany

What are the real chances of a hard border in Jan 2021?

Johnson has set his stall out looking for a Canada deal. That looks to be impossible to negotiate in 11 months. Therefore WTO and hard border?

On the other hand, if the deal is somehow negotiated, how negatively impactful on the NI economy would sea checks need to be before the Alliance party and UUP decide that they want to opt out of the frontstop and have a hard border?

Kermit.de.frog

briany wrote: »

What are the real chances of a hard border in Jan 2021?

Zero. The Withdrawal Agreement has been concluded.

This takes precedence trade deal or not.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

It's not only that they need to meet the standards which is fairly straight forward; it's proving that the goods meet the standard in every single shipment which is the real killer. Any business who thought there would be less paperwork is going to be in for a very rude surprise on their first export attempt or heck simply trying to take a sample to a customer in EU.

I doubt if there's any exporting business that expects less paperwork when exporting to the EU.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I doubt if there's any exporting business that expects less paperwork when exporting to the EU.

Maybe now, but that certainly wasn't the position at the time.

So who pays for all this extra paperwork? Does it come from the £350 Pw or somewhere else?

storker

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious where the limits of the shtick of blaming the EU for everything are.

What makes you think there's a limit?

The UK has left so if there's one positive to be seen from this, it'll be seeing this narrative collapse.

I'm not so sure. Brexit isn't a science; it's a religion. Economic and political facts will have no more effect on the Brexit faithful than scientific facts have on Young Earth Creationists.

Xertz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A perfect foil for stoking English nationalism.

From an EU perspective, what happens domestically in the UK is no longer relevant. Brexit's passed the point of no return and all the ranting and raving that may go on aimed at a domestic audience is just that.

The Tories have a comfortable majority. If they carry on stoking far right nationalism, I think the only conclusion that could be drawn is they're no longer a centre right party, but actually one that's moved to the far right. However, from a EU-UK negotiation point of view, what difference does it make?

If we're dealing with a far right party in the UK, that's what we're dealing with. It's not going to change because they whip up hysteria in the tabloids and the tabloids have no relevance at all beyond UK borders.

Any move they take e.g. against EU citizens' rights in the UK or to block flows of goods/services will just have automatic reciprocal consequence.

Strazdas

Xertz wrote: »

From an EU perspective, what happens domestically in the UK is no longer relevant. Brexit's passed the point of no return and all the ranting and raving that may go on aimed at a domestic audience is just that.

The Tories have a comfortable majority. If they carry on stoking far right nationalism, I think the only conclusion that could be drawn is they're no longer a centre right party, but actually one that's moved to the far right. However, from a EU-UK negotiation point of view, what difference does it make?

If we're dealing with a far right party in the UK, that's what we're dealing with. It's not going to change because they whip up hysteria in the tabloids and the tabloids have no relevance at all beyond UK borders.

Any move they take e.g. against EU citizens' rights in the UK or to block flows of goods/services will just have automatic reciprocal consequence.

It has already happened. There's no way the current version of the party could be considered centre right (quite a few centre right MPs left the party recently in protest).

briany

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Zero. The Withdrawal Agreement has been concluded.

This takes precedence trade deal or not.

But this was something that the UK agreed to as part of negotiations toward a revised WA, wasn't it, or was it a separate agreement entirely? If (as could well happen) FTA talks collapse, what's to stop the UK reneging on the special arrangements? Yes, the EU might refuse to do business with the UK if they didn't uphold a border solution, but the acrimony might lead to the UK not caring.

moon2

briany wrote: »

what's to stop the UK reneging on the special arrangements?

The world is a lot bigger than the EU and UK. The ramifications of showing that agreements with the UK are not worth the paper they're printed on would be felt for years or decades.

54and56

briany wrote: »

But this was something that the UK agreed to as part of negotiations toward a revised WA, wasn't it, or was it a separate agreement entirely? If (as could well happen) FTA talks collapse, what's to stop the UK reneging on the special arrangements? Yes, the EU might refuse to do business with the UK if they didn't uphold a border solution, but the acrimony might lead to the UK not caring.

The Withdrawal Agreement is a separate international treaty that stands regardless of whether a trade agreement is concluded or not. The political declaration which sets out the broad strokes of what both the EU & UK want to achieve in the trade negotiations is not binding.

The whole objective of ensuring the NI question was dealt with in the Withdrawal Agreement was to ensure it couldn't be used as leverage by the UK in the trade negotiations and that objective was successfully achieved.

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

But this was something that the UK agreed to as part of negotiations toward a revised WA, wasn't it, or was it a separate agreement entirely? If (as could well happen) FTA talks collapse, what's to stop the UK reneging on the special arrangements? Yes, the EU might refuse to do business with the UK if they didn't uphold a border solution, but the acrimony might lead to the UK not caring.

The WA is a treaty, binding in international law. But, obviously, the EU doesn't have an army that will invade and occupy the UK if it repudiates its obligations under the treaty that it has made. So "what would the sanctions for breach be?" is a reasonable question.

I think there are a few.

The first is domestic blowback. Under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK pays many billions to the EU; the bulk of these payments have already been made, or will be made in 2020. If the UK tears up the Withdrawal Agreement at the end of 2020, obviously it will refuse to make any more payments, but questions will be asked about the tens of billions that it has already paid, and for what? If the UK government was happy to leave the EU with no trade deal, then it could have done that on Brexit day, instead of paying tens of billions to put it off for 11 months and then do it. So what was all that money for? Why did the Johnson government agree to pay it, and then feed through a shredder the treaty that they got by paying it?

A related point is that by repudiating the withdrawal agreement the UK gives up the protections that the WA confers on UK citizens who are settled in EU countries.

A third point is that it obviously puts the kibosh on any other deals with the EU. While in the short term there may be a burst of patriotic approval for this from the loonier elements of Brexitania, in the medium and long terms the UK will be hugely, hugely adversely affected by being on poor terms with its immediate and vastly larger neighbour. The UK may exit transition without a trade deal, but if so it will still want to put a trade deal in place. Tearing up the withdrawal agreement would be a huge obstacle to that.

Plus, of course, it holes below the waterline the UK's strategy of making exciting new trade deals with other countries, because who will have any interest in making a deal with a country that does not regard itself as bound by the deals it makes?

So simply repudiating the WA might gratify the Mark Francoises of this world, but it's a strategy that leaves the UK with basically nowhere to go.

And all of those considerations kick in before we consider the sanctions available to the EU under international law. I've already pointed out that the EU cannot enforce the treaty by force of arms, but that doesn't mean that they can do nothing. They are very well positioned to apply very substantial economic sanctions to the UK, for instance, if so minded, and they would certainly be entitled to do that.

That Telegraph headline is absurd when matched with what Johnson and Raab etc. have been coming out with.

I knew 2020 would be a shltshow but I didn't expect it to start immediately.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

That Telegraph headline is absurd when matched with what Johnson and Raab etc. have been coming out with.

I knew 2020 would be a shltshow but I didn't expect it to start immediately.

I did.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I did.

I was expecting an incubation period of 5-14 days. Not 24 hours. Speaking of, if the coronavirus became a big thing in Europe, it would likely affect negotiations? UK populace even more averse to movement of people, a heavy focus on healthcare systems, an effect on economies, political time spent dealing with the crisis etc.

Regardless, I doubt negotiations will barely even get going. And if they do, it will probably be a very basic non-mixed agreement in December that doesn't have to be ratified around Europe.

fash

Nody wrote: »

It's not only that they need to meet the standards which is fairly straight forward; it's proving that the goods meet the standard in every single shipment which is the real killer. Any business who thought there would be less paperwork is going to be in for a very rude surprise on their first export attempt or heck simply trying to take a sample to a customer in EU.

It is also the regulatory environment that the business is working in that is the possibily the biggest issue: if the EU has no guarantees that the business is not getting unreasonable government assistance to undercut European companies - etc., (the LPF provisions) then why should the EU give tariff and quota free access?

CruelCoin

fash wrote: »

It is also the regulatory environment that the business is working in that is the possibily the biggest issue: if the EU has no guarantees that the business is not getting unreasonable government assistance to undercut European companies - etc., (the LPF provisions) then why should the EU give tariff and quota free access?

Because the UK are net importers from the EU.

The EU restricting that trade over grant aid would be like punching yourself in the stomach to avoid getting pinched.

newport2

CruelCoin wrote: »

Because the UK are net importers from the EU.

The EU restricting that trade over grant aid would be like punching yourself in the stomach to avoid getting pinched.

Ireland are net importers from the US.

If we restricted that trade, who would it hurt more? The smaller trading bloc., ie Ireland.

The trade lost in exports from the EU to the UK is spread across 27 countries. The trade the UK loses to the EU hits only themselves. Punch, not pinch.

Call me Al

newport2 wrote: »

Ireland are net importers from the US.

If we restricted that trade, who would it hurt more? The smaller trading bloc., ie Ireland.

The trade lost in exports from the EU to the UK is spread across 27 countries. The trade the UK loses to the EU hits only themselves. Punch, not pinch.

Ireland isn't a net importer from the US

https://www.ustradenumbers.com/country/ireland/

newport2

Call me Al wrote: »

Ireland isn't a net importer from the US

https://www.ustradenumbers.com/country/ireland/

Yes, you're right of course, brain fart this early in the morning.

My point still stands though. Even if the UK exports less to the EU than it imports, the impact on losing those exports will be a harder hit to the UK than the EU losing what the UK imports from them.

moon2

newport2 wrote: »

Yes, you're right of course, brain fart this early in the morning.

My point still stands though. Even if the UK exports less to the EU than it imports, the impact on losing those exports will be a harder hit to the UK than the EU losing what the UK imports from them.

The EU created and authorised a disaster fund to offset the worst of any potential impact on European companies as they adjust to the new trade regime.

It's like the posturing and threats eminating from Boris were factored in years ago...

Interesting development. Nissan considering focusing on the UK market and closing its EU factories.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/109569/nissan-pull-out-europe-and-concentrate-uk-event-hard

They reckon they could increase market share from 4% to 20% if other manufacturers face tariffs.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting development. Nissan considering focusing on the UK market and closing its EU factories.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/109569/nissan-pull-out-europe-and-concentrate-uk-event-hard

They reckon they could increase market share from 4% to 20% if other manufacturers face tariffs.

That seems to be a lot of ifs and buts and highly speculative. Trying to grow their sales five or sixfold would be a big gamble and could easily fail.

brickster69

newport2 wrote: »

The trade lost in exports from the EU to the UK is spread across 27 countries. The trade the UK loses to the EU hits only themselves. Punch, not pinch.

But 90% of that is from 6 countries. It's like saying the EU has 450 million population but only 100 million buy anything.

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

That seems to be a lot of ifs and buts and highly speculative. Trying to grow their sales five or sixfold would be a big gamble and could easily fail.

Especially if no one's buying cars post-Brexit

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

That seems to be a lot of ifs and buts and highly speculative. Trying to grow their sales five or sixfold would be a big gamble and could easily fail.

It's the manufacturing version of taking a short position on an industry. It would be remarkable to see it play out and succeed.