Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ultimately the cost could be spread in various ways.

Note that even in a FTA without tariffs, other barriers have a similar effect. Suppose a UK maker imports widgets, assembes them into wotsits and exports half of those to the EU.

If 1 widget in 10 must be inspected on import, that's an extra cost, and a delay in the supply chain. The maker may need to stockpile more in case of delays, more cost. When they export wotsits to the EU, same thing, And with no UK alignment, they may need extra paperwork and visits by EU officials to prove compliance with EU standards.

All of this ups prices and lowers trade even without tariffs, and means less money for both UK and EU sides.

This is why Thatcher was such a big fan of the Single Market - freer trade means more trade means more money all round.

Peregrinus

Oh, indeed. And in fact with the general lowering of tariffs that the world has seen in the last 20 years or so, it's non-tariff barriers - like products standards, market rules, inspection and documentation requirements and much more besides - that are actually the greater impediment to international trade. Even if the UK does secure a no-tariff, no-quota FTA, UK-EU trade is still going to suffer a signficant hit if the UK will not commit to common standards/LPF; signficant non-tariff barriers will result.

Igotadose

J Mysterio wrote: »

One thing I will say for Brexit (and Trump) is it has really opened my eyes to how stupid some people are. It's particularly astounding how many rich, successful people are just mind achingly stupid. I despair for the future.

Michelle Obama said it well: 'I HAVE BEEN AT EVERY POWERFUL TABLE YOU CAN THINK OF... THEY ARE NOT THAT SMART'

https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-tells-secret-i-have-been-every-powerful-table-you-can-think-1242695

I like to think, smart people do stupid things less frequently.

ancapailldorcha

Below standard posts deleted.

serfboard

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's particularly astounding how many rich, successful people are just mind achingly stupid.

Some of them are.

Some, however, are experts/focused in their narrow chosen field, and know no more about the wider economy than the rest of us.

For some inexplicable reason, though, they are often asked their opinion about the economy, politics, etc.

You might as well ask my dog, for the elucidation that you'd get.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

Where does Airbus get it's wings for planes from ?

Bremen.

The point being that the UK assembly line is one of many and production can be moved according to business needs.

kub

brickster69 wrote: »

Where does Airbus get it's wings for planes from ?

Well only this past week they got their last set of wings for the A380 from the UK.
I knew these were built there but are no longer required now as they are in the process of building their last few A380 planes.

ArthurDayne

serfboard wrote: »

Some of them are.

Some, however, are experts/focused in their narrow chosen field, and know no more about the wider economy than the rest of us.

For some inexplicable reason, though, they are often asked their opinion about the economy, politics, etc.

You might as well ask my dog, for the elucidation that you'd get.

This same point was expressed quite brilliantly by Alex Andreou. It’s about the whole No Deal saga prior to the Withdrawal Agreement, but is roundly applicable to Brexit coverage generally :

“One of the reasons we're so confused by this issue at the moment is because it is misrepresented to the public through the medium of broadcast TV 'balance'.

A member of the public calling in to ask whether his European health insurance card will work after a disorderly exit does not require balance. He needs an answer. An insurance expert saying 'well, in the absence of a side deal being struck between now and then, the short answer is 'no'' need not be balanced by a pundit droning on over Skype about 'project fear'.

This is not a contentious issue. It is a factual one. There is only one credible reading of it. The view of someone who has worked in the industry for thirty years is not equilibrant to the pundit who quickly Googled the issue in the green room. But on that day of BBC no-deal coverage, that's exactly what happened.

As if to make this even more painfully obvious, at the end of each hour, for a few minutes of a lighter item, the BBC was looking at a piece of research that suggested "the secret to protecting your seaside chips from scavenging seagulls is to stare at them".

They chatted to experts - people from the university that conducted the research, a zoologist specialising in seagulls and a wildlife photographer who had been around the birds for decades. They felt no need to have a Telegraph pundit, who once saw a seagull in Brighton, contradict the findings for balance. Our public broadcaster covers seagull behaviour with more rigour and integrity than no-deal Brexit.”

Enzokk

British diplomats have to learn how to obtain information on what is happening at the EU.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1225707992189931520?s=20

One of the replies, to sure of the accuracy, was that Norway used to go to the UK diplomats for information on what is happening. So where will they and the UK be going now?

ancapailldorcha

Norway, presumably enjoys better relations with the EU. I won't pretend to be an expert in European diplomacy but I would think that the Norwegians will have planned for this. The British meanwhile, will probably have to resort tactics described in the above tweet or just have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

ambro25

[HTML][/HTML]

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Norway, presumably enjoys better relations with the EU. I won't pretend to be an expert in European diplomacy but I would think that the Norwegians will have planned for this. The British meanwhile, will probably have to resort tactics described in the above tweet or just have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

The tactics described in the above tweet *are* the same rules as everyone else (-who is not an EU member)

Senior FO types appointed to these diplomatic postings are, at this time still, some of the best/sharpest operators going. But the problem remains, as ever, the lack of political integrity at, and directions issued to departments from, the Cabinet provided with their collective efforts and output. To the extent that talent is now beginning to leave (eg Rogers).

To coin an analogy, Cummings notwithstanding (...for now, still), the UK still enjoys ownership of a diplomatic Formula One with a full support team of best-in-class engineers. Problem is, it hasn't got any professional drivers, never mind F1-worthy ones. And the lack of race results and points is now causing some of the best engineers to start walking.

robindch

The Channel Islands revoke permission for French fishing boats in CI's waters. CI boats go fishing. CI boats bring fish to France for processing. France says "va te faire foutre". Fish rot while discussions take place. Guernsey reinstates permission for French fishing boats and life resumes.

Remember - the UK holds all the cards.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-guernsey-51364513

Christy42

robindch wrote: »

The Channel Islands revoke permission for French fishing boats in CI's waters. CI boats go fishing. CI boats bring fish to France for processing. France says "va te faire foutre". Fish rot while discussions take place. Guernsey reinstates permission for French fishing boats and life resumes.

Remember - the UK holds all the cards.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-guernsey-51364513

I was curious how this happened because the UK is still operating under EU rules. However it turns out the CI are slightly separate and they only found 10 days! beforehand? How is that possible. With all EU rules applying surely the UK would focus on the areas where they don't and tell them a bit sooner.

moon2

Christy42 wrote: »

I was curious how this happened because the UK is still operating under EU rules. However it turns out the CI are slightly separate and they only found 10 days! beforehand? How is that possible. With all EU rules applying surely the UK would focus on the areas where they don't and tell them a bit sooner.

Perhaps the UK were looking for a way to show they had full control over their fishing grounds and blocking french boats was proof of that control. In other words - this could've been a deliberate ploy which backfired completely.

serfboard

ambro25 wrote: »

the problem remains, as ever, the lack of political integrity at, and directions issued to departments from, the Cabinet provided with their collective efforts and output. To the extent that talent is now beginning to leave (eg Rogers).

Rogers is a good example - Hall-Hall is a better one:

Alexandra Hall Hall wrote:

I am also at a stage in life where I would prefer to do something more rewarding with my time, than peddle half-truths on behalf of a government I do not trust

Enzokk

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This same point was expressed quite brilliantly by Alex Andreou. It’s about the whole No Deal saga prior to the Withdrawal Agreement, but is roundly applicable to Brexit coverage generally :

“One of the reasons we're so confused by this issue at the moment is because it is misrepresented to the public through the medium of broadcast TV 'balance'.

A member of the public calling in to ask whether his European health insurance card will work after a disorderly exit does not require balance. He needs an answer. An insurance expert saying 'well, in the absence of a side deal being struck between now and then, the short answer is 'no'' need not be balanced by a pundit droning on over Skype about 'project fear'.

This is not a contentious issue. It is a factual one. There is only one credible reading of it. The view of someone who has worked in the industry for thirty years is not equilibrant to the pundit who quickly Googled the issue in the green room. But on that day of BBC no-deal coverage, that's exactly what happened.

As if to make this even more painfully obvious, at the end of each hour, for a few minutes of a lighter item, the BBC was looking at a piece of research that suggested "the secret to protecting your seaside chips from scavenging seagulls is to stare at them".

They chatted to experts - people from the university that conducted the research, a zoologist specialising in seagulls and a wildlife photographer who had been around the birds for decades. They felt no need to have a Telegraph pundit, who once saw a seagull in Brighton, contradict the findings for balance. Our public broadcaster covers seagull behaviour with more rigour and integrity than no-deal Brexit.”

And to show an example of the above, here it is,

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1224059196645298179?s=20

Enzokk

Thought this story needed a post of its own. It seems like the EU is panicking right now due to Brexit and is going into meltdown.

As the panicked EU goes into Brexit meltdown, Britain finally has the upper hand

The EU is scoffing with panic. This week, its leaders neurotically laughed off the threat of a Parliament shutdown, as bureaucrats slammed their fists over post-Brexit budget cuts. Press officers tuttingly buried an economic report warning that Brexit will rock bloc economies. But they struggled to firefight raging speculation as to who might follow Britain out the door. As rumours rumbled of an Italexit debt crisis, Marine Le Pen thundered that a global Eurosceptic movement has infiltrated Brussels.

Perhaps the most intriguing development this week, however, is Michel Barnier’s shift in persona. Mere months ago, Mr Barnier was gloomily instructing Britain to sign up to vassalage. Lecture highlights included “why Britain must take responsibility” (by becoming an EU satellite state) and why “choices” (for example liberty) must have “consequences”. But suddenly, the school master has a snake oil salesman. His arid presentations on Britain’s self-inflicted fate have morphed into buttery pitches for “a best in class free trade agreement”.

Such a “best in class” deal could be otherwise described as Theresa Mayite vassalage. It entails sucking Britain into megalomaniac defence projects, allowing Brussels to plunder Britain’s fishing waters, and blessing Britain with freedom for the small price of sacrificing its competitiveness. This “exceptional offer” is being gift-wrapped free of charge in the tangled red ribbons of state aid paperwork and taxation regulations. Available for a limited time only (expires Dec 2020).

In reality, though Brussels knows that its chance to flog Britain the worst trade deal in history is slipping away. It can no longer fall back on the backstop to keep us locked in Hotel California. Boris Johnson’s thumping majority also means Britain’s "no deal" bargaining chip is back in play: a WTO Brexit would pass through Parliament reasonably comfortably. Revelations this week that, in the event of no deal, Japanese car giant Nissan would consider doubling down on the UK to boost its domestic market share, and protect its Sunderland plant, underline the inconvenient truth: Project Fear premonitions are overblown, and Britain could cope perfectly well without a trade deal.

The rest of the column is more of the same really and nothing we haven't seen before from Brexiteers. Take the highlighted part, which has been denied already by Nissan 2 days ago it seems but is repeated here. So how serious should we take the rest of her pronouncements?

Boris Johnson snubs captains of industry over Brexit speech[/QUOTE]

This was linked 2 days ago in this thread,

Nissan, the second-largest car manufacturer in the country, said yesterday that its European operation would become unsustainable if the UK and Brussels failed to strike a tariff-free trade deal. The company employs about 7,000 workers at its Sunderland plant.

It denied reports that it was preparing to increase its British investment in the event of a no-trade-deal Brexit, saying that it might shut its UK operations, alongside facilities in Spain and France, and relocate production to Japan. Last year Nissan announced that it would centralise production of its new electric X-Trail vehicle at its Kyushu hub rather than create a second facility in Europe.

A senior company source said that its integrated supply chain meant that barriers to trade between Britain and Europe made further consolidation much more likely. About two thirds of the components going to make Nissan vehicles at Sunderland are imported from the EU. Only a third originate in the UK. Should the UK and the EU end up imposing respective tariffs on the export of cars, this could increase costs by up to 10 per cent.

The statement was released after reports in the Financial Times suggested that Nissan had drawn up contingency plans to consolidate European operations in Sunderland. It suggested that the company could benefit from new duties on vehicles imported from the EU, giving Nissan’s UK-made models a competitive edge.

Her column ends like this,

This includes the preposition “In”. Britain has rejected staying “in” the single market, with all the accompanying constrictions and conditions. Brussels’ solution? Offer “access” to the single market, with all the accompanying constrictions and conditions.

Then there is the oldest trick of the bureaucratic sociopath: the unflinching lie. My favourite peddled by the EU this week is that free movement must continue as the condition for any trade deal. Even though the EU has, in the Political Declaration, conceded the precise contrary.

It is increasingly clear that Brussels is the new Theresa May of these negotiations. And it is finally heading for a rude awakening.

I guess for someone that apparently also thinks there is no climate emergency, slightly complicated positions that occur with the upcoming trade talks will be hard to comprehend. The UK wants access to the EU market and has said they want as free and unfettered as possible. The EU has said this is possible but here are the conditions to this. Why do I get the feeling she thinks that the UK should be able to have access without the obligations? It is worrying that these messages are still being put out there.

Seth Brundle

Enzokk wrote: »

Thought this story needed a post of its own. It seems like the EU is panicking right now due to Brexit and is going into meltdown.

As the panicked EU goes into Brexit meltdown, Britain finally has the upper hand



The rest of the column is more of the same really and nothing we haven't seen before from Brexiteers. Take the highlighted part, which has been denied already by Nissan 2 days ago it seems but is repeated here. So how serious should we take the rest of her pronouncements?

Boris Johnson snubs captains of industry over Brexit speech
This was linked 2 days ago in this thread,



Her column ends like this,



I guess for someone that apparently also thinks there is no climate emergency, slightly complicated positions that occur with the upcoming trade talks will be hard to comprehend. The UK wants access to the EU market and has said they want as free and unfettered as possible. The EU has said this is possible but here are the conditions to this. Why do I get the feeling she thinks that the UK should be able to have access without the obligations? It is worrying that these messages are still being put out there.

Don't put too much faith in those sources IMO!

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

Thought this story needed a post of its own. It seems like the EU is panicking right now due to Brexit and is going into meltdown.

As the panicked EU goes into Brexit meltdown, Britain finally has the upper hand


I guess for someone that apparently also thinks there is no climate emergency, slightly complicated positions that occur with the upcoming trade talks will be hard to comprehend. The UK wants access to the EU market and has said they want as free and unfettered as possible. The EU has said this is possible but here are the conditions to this. Why do I get the feeling she thinks that the UK should be able to have access without the obligations? It is worrying that these messages are still being put out there.

Lies, propaganda, falsehoods. The first paragraph alone has so many lies : it's obvious she is gaslighting her readers.

LuckyLloyd

She’s made her career from gaslighting her readers. Well written completely ludicrous drivel. Every single column.

correct horse battery staple

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

In meantime



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mike-pence-huawei-5g-boris-johnson-uk-trade-deal-us-brexit-trump-latest-a9324086.html

It's fine. Johnson just has to threaten the US with No Deal and they'll fold.

RobMc59

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's fine. Johnson just has to threaten the US with No Deal and they'll fold.

The UK stance over 5G technology undermines the suggestion that they are crawling to the US for a trade deal.

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK stance over 5G technology undermines the suggestion that they are crawling to the US for a trade deal.

Sure it does; exactly like UK was in full control and EU was shivering in fear over the initial deal. Boris will fold like a chocolate figurine in the sun if US says Huwai has to go or no deal.

declanflynn

Nody wrote: »

Sure it does; exactly like UK was in full control and EU was shivering in fear over the initial deal. Boris will fold like a chocolate figurine in the sun if US says Huwai has to go or no deal.

Boris doesn't need the US, he is in wuhan getting a super deal in exchange box a box of face masks

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I am going to bookmark this post of yours, and bring it up when (soon enough) UK will ban Huawei on behest of their unelected overlords.

Right at the time of this post this is being discussed on BBC news with headline "Senior Tories want Huawei 'ruled out' of 5G plans"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51424133

I would prefer the UK to use Ericsson or Nokia technology just as I would prefer the UK to continue using EU standards but because they choose to,not because they're told to by the US or EU.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would prefer the UK to use Ericsson or Nokia technology just as I would prefer the UK to continue using EU standards but because they choose to,not because they're told to by the US or EU.

The UK has cut the legs out from under itself. It had shelter within the EU, now that is gone. It has left itself wide open to being pushed around by the big players and there is nothing much they can do about it now.

RobMc59

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK has cut the legs out from under itself. It had shelter within the EU, now that is gone. It has left itself wide open to being pushed around by the big players and there is nothing much they can do about it now.

You may be correct,it's the law of the jungle. For example,I would have preferred an EU army but that's not going to happen as the US has told the EU to forget that idea.

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK has cut the legs out from under itself. It had shelter within the EU, now that is gone. It has left itself wide open to being pushed around by the big players and there is nothing much they can do about it now.

Indeed, the whole "sovereignty" argument is contingent on the UK being a global superpower who doesn't even need any friends or allies.

It's a complete misreading of global politics in the 21st century (most people originally pushing for Brexit were an assortment of cranks and idiots).

Lemming

RobMc59 wrote: »

For example,I would have preferred an EU army but that's not going to happen as the US has told the EU to forget that idea.

That's not why notions of an EU army have repeatedly been kyboshed; nothing to do with the US, and even less to do with anything that the Daily Heil or the Torygraph like to claim, and more down to the member states themselves not wanting to do it because a) duplication of command structures on top of both existing national - and NATO where applicable - b) duplication = more money, and c) duplication of function, i.e. what exactly would an EU army do that neither NATO or the existing EU-led 'battle groups' do not already do?

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

You may be correct,it's the law of the jungle. For example,I would have preferred an EU army but that's not going to happen as the US has told the EU to forget that idea.

The EU was not builting an EU army. The EU can hardily forget something that it was not even working on in the first place. The EU is working on greater defence co-operation between member states and as far as I can see this is continuing regardless of any opinions the US might have expressed.