Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Tea Shock

Interesting that Downing Street are still so reluctant to publish any non EU trade projections.

Igotadose

Saw this very interesting comment in a thread on the online version of the indo's article shown above. Nice, handy set of numbers to show exactly how much negotiation needs to occur by 1/1/2020 in order for the UK to keep it's existing trade and regulatory arrangements in place. It's very substantial:

7% of the EU’s exports go to the UK

59% of the UK’s exports go to the EU (47%) and to non-EU countries via EU trade deals (12%)

Of the UK’s top 50 trade partners who account for 92% of the UK’s trade, 41 are either EU member state, are in the process of becoming a EU member state or have a trade agreement with the EU via which you trade with them

The UK trades with only 24 countries under WTO terms only. It trades with 72 countries via EU trade agreements.

The EU has:

(-) a gold standard Single Market + Customs union of 27 EU member states.

(-) 4 single market participation trade deals with non-EU states

(-) 3 customs union trade agreements with non-EU states. None of them want to roll over their trade deals with the EU to he UK

(-) 72 FTAs with non-EU countries with non-EU states for which it has WTO ATP status meaning that without the EU’s permission you can’t do a FTA with them.
Three years ago the EU generously gave the UK permission to ask these 72 states to roll over the terms of trade of the EU FTAs to the UK. Only 20 have done and at worse terms or at a cost. For instance, the South African Nations said: sure, that will cost you £4bn (to keep the same terms of trade with their nations), which May described as a big success. Furthermore none of the large FTAs (Canada, Japan etc) want to roll over their FTAs to the UK and want them changed (= worse terms for the UK).
Kindly note that the EU-Japan FTA covers almost one third of the world’s economy creating the largest FTA on earth.

(-) 224 bilateral trade deals, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 202 Regulatory Cooperation Agreements - everything from anti-trust to data sharing. none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 69 Fisheries Agreements - access to waters, protection of stocks, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 65 Transport Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 49 Customs Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 45 Nuclear Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

(-) 34 Agriculture Agreements, none of them rolled over to the UK

Leroy42

It is really quite odd that the government continue to avoid publishing anything, and that the public don't seem to care.

They are happy to support a policy despite no actual plans, no projections, no targets.

Brexit was supposed to be done on 31st, they even had a celebration, and yet even now there is nothing concrete.

And it is slowing dawning on them, much like the implications of triggering A50 once the bravado had passed, just what the WA actually means. NI is essentially stuck in two custom regimes.

There are now select committees trying to work exactly what Johnson has agreed to and it is clearly very far from the Brexit he made it out to be.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Incidentally it's kinda pitiful to hear the same old remainer arguments on this thread going round in circles ad infinitum.

Would it not be time to wrap up this thread up and start a thread on the UK after Brexit and what it means for the EU and Ireland. That would be more worthwhile I feel.

Whether or not this thread is closed, the new thread you suggest could be opened. You could open it yourself. Just sayin'.

AllForIt wrote: »

From an experimental point of view Brexit will serve to show how valuable it is to be in a political EU at all. Although I think we already know it's the nation's that are small that benefit the most and the larger economies that benefit the least.

Not necessarily. The UK has benefited hugely from EU membership - strong GDP growth (compared to what is was able to achieve outside the EU, before it joined) and massive growth in trade, to the point where the UK's trade, as a percentage of its GDP, grew steadily, and reached an all-time high in 2017 (though it has been coming down slightly since the the May government announced it would target a hard Brexit, obviously).

It's interesting that you phrase this as a comparison between the states that benefit the most, and those that benefit the least. Even those member 0states which benefit the least from membership (whichever states those are) still benefit, and would be would presumably be worse off if they were not members. From this point of view, leaving only makes sense if membership is actually detrimental to a member state.

Leroy42

So what did the UK lose by being in the EU? Or, what will they gain?

Its weird, because previously it was argued that it was all a plot for Germany and France to control the rest, but apparently France and Germany are actually being ridden by the smaller countries.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is really quite odd that the government continue to avoid publishing anything, and that the public don't seem to care.

They are happy to support a policy despite no actual plans, no projections, no targets.

Brexit was supposed to be done on 31st, they even had a celebration, and yet even now there is nothing concrete.

And it is slowing dawning on them, much like the implications of triggering A50 once the bravado had passed, just what the WA actually means. NI is essentially stuck in two custom regimes.

There are now select committees trying to work exactly what Johnson has agreed to and it is clearly very far from the Brexit he made it out to be.

Quite shocking really. Even political bloggers in the UK say they can't make head or tail of what Johnson and Cummings are up to with the EU and are wondering if disaster capitalism is the intended outcome. The British public seem beyond ignorant and not even interested in any of it.

RobMc59

Strazdas wrote: »

Quite shocking really. Even political bloggers in the UK say they can't make head or tail of what Johnson and Cummings are up to with the EU and are wondering if disaster capitalism is the intended outcome. The British public seem beyond ignorant and not even interested in any of it.

Perhaps their strategy is to convince the EU that the UK is preparing to take it`s chances with a no deal brexit which will somehow pressure the EU into agreeing a `no strings` deal with the UK which allows them to cherry pick the bits they like and reject the troublesome bits they disagree with which of course is beyond `castles in the sky` stuff to anyone with a reasonable grasp of reality which does`nt include bozo bo jo and dominic`charge of the light brigade`cummings!

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps their strategy is to convince the EU that the UK is preparing to take it`s chances with a no deal brexit which will somehow pressure the EU into agreeing a `no strings` deal with the UK which allows them to cherry pick the bits they like and reject the troublesome bits they disagree with which of course is beyond `castles in the sky` stuff to anyone with a reasonable grasp of reality which does`nt include bozo bo jo and dominic`charge of the light brigade`cummings!

This would make no sense at all. If the UK were willing to face a crash-out Brexit it could have done that on 31 January. They avoided it by signing the withdrawal agreement, but if they then choose a crash-out in December, all they will have done is paid tens of billions of euros to put off the crash-out for 11 months, and if you think a crash-out is an acceptable outcome why would you pay tens of millions of euros to delay it for 11 months?

Plus, it's worse that that. They could have had a crash-out in January on the basis that they didn't like the deal offered to them, so couldn't agree to it, so didn't. But if they crash out in December they still have to abide by the treaty that they have made, so NI still gets special treatment, there's an internal customs and regulatory border in the UK, etc, etc. And that lasts indefinitely, unless the NI Assembly decides to end it. So they'll have accepted that, and paid tens of billions of euros, and for what?

greenfield21

Good to see the transport minister on Marr show
denying the ramours about the Chinese building hs2, he didn't rule it out though. Maybe this is part of been global and doing things differently which is what they want. He also said that the UK needs to rebuild it's own skilled labor to build infrastructure again which is also a positive.

murphaph

greenfield21 wrote: »

Good to see the transport minister on Marr show
denying the ramours about the Chinese building hs2, he didn't rule it out though. Maybe this is part of been global and doing things differently which is what they want. He also said that the UK needs to rebuild it's own skilled labor to build infrastructure again which is also a positive.

Being an EU member state didn't prevent either of those things of course.

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

This would make no sense at all. If the UK were willing to face a crash-out Brexit it could have done that on 31 January. They avoided it by signing the withdrawal agreement, but if they then choose a crash-out in December, all they will have done is paid tens of billions of euros to put off the crash-out for 11 months, and if you think a crash-out is an acceptable outcome why would you pay tens of millions of euros to delay it for 11 months?

The country, i.e. the hapless taxpayer, will pay the billions to the EU, not Boris and his friends.

If I put on my tin-foil hat and think like a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the disaster capitalists behind Johnson are still putting everything in place to maximise the profit they can make. If they can spend the next 10 months placing all of their bets, having confidence that Johnson will pull the plug and trigger no deal at the end of the year (while maintaining lots of ambiguity in the meantime) they can maximise their gains.

It sounds far-fetched, but I'm struggling to find a better explanation.

swampgas

swampgas wrote: »

The country, i.e. the hapless taxpayer, will pay the billions to the EU, not Boris and his friends.

If I put on my tin-foil hat and think like a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the disaster capitalists behind Johnson are still putting everything in place to maximise the profit they can make. If they can spend the next 10 months placing all of their bets, having confidence that Johnson will pull the plug and trigger no deal at the end of the year (while maintaining lots of ambiguity in the meantime) they can maximise their gains.

It sounds far-fetched, but I'm struggling to find a better explanation.

Sounds plausible to me.

reslfj

AllForIt wrote: »

Although I think we already know it's the nation's that are small that benefit the most and the larger economies that benefit the least.

"[Danish Finance Minister Kristian] Jensen added: “There are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations.” " /2017

https://www.politico.eu/article/kristian-jensen-brits-angry-at-danes-small-nation-jibe/

Lars

ThePanjandrum

reslfj wrote: »

"[Danish Finance Minister Kristian] Jensen added: “There are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations.” " /2017

https://www.politico.eu/article/kristian-jensen-brits-angry-at-danes-small-nation-jibe/

Lars

He must have meant Germany and France.

ThePanjandrum

Tea Shock wrote: »

Interesting that Downing Street are still so reluctant to publish any non EU trade projections.

Great story by the Independent. Not only is it based on supposition but even if these studies had been done they would have been prepared under Hammond, no-one would expect them to say any different.


Personally I rank the Independent alongside the Daily Star for trustworthiness.

ancapailldorcha

Don't dump links here please. Post deleted.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

The country, i.e. the hapless taxpayer, will pay the billions to the EU, not Boris and his friends.

If I put on my tin-foil hat and think like a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the disaster capitalists behind Johnson are still putting everything in place to maximise the profit they can make. If they can spend the next 10 months placing all of their bets, having confidence that Johnson will pull the plug and trigger no deal at the end of the year (while maintaining lots of ambiguity in the meantime) they can maximise their gains.

It sounds far-fetched, but I'm struggling to find a better explanation.

An explanation that admittedly requires a tinfoil hat is never the best explanation.

Other explanations: 1. Johson has a track record of saying that he will never do something right up until the point he does it. I'm old enough to remember when he was never going to applyfor an extension of the Article 50 period, and when he was never going to accept a Withdrawal Agreement that would divide the UK, and when he was never going to fire Sajid Javid. This is more of that.

2. Johnson has no more commitment to Brexit than he has to Remain, or indeed to anything else. This complete lack of conviction, ironically, has the beneficial side-effect that his vision is never blinkered by his convictions. Therfore, he can perfectly well understand how damaging to the UK a crash-out would be, and how damaging to him that would in turn be. Therefore, the reason he took political risks and engaged in a climb-down in order to secure a WA is that he is, in fact, very anxious to avoid a crash-out, for pragmatic self-interested reasons. That won't change between now and December.

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

He must have meant Germany and France.

Both have larger economies than the UK. Both realise they are small countries in an ever globalising world.

Leroy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Great story by the Independent. Not only is it based on supposition but even if these studies had been done they would have been prepared under Hammond, no-one would expect them to say any different.


Personally I rank the Independent alongside the Daily Star for trustworthiness.

Are you not curious that Johnson has not published anything? Surely he is working off something more than just an idea?
You don't really believe that the UK government is effectively working blind since all civil service advice is biased against it's own government? Johnson has just given the go ahead for a 100bn+ HS2 project, but cannot have used any official studies?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you not curious that Johnson has not published anything? Surely he is working off something more than just an idea?
You don't really believe that the UK government is effectively working blind since all civil service advice is biased against it's own government? Johnson has just given the go ahead for a 100bn+ HS2 project, but cannot have used any official studies?

You must understand that, for Brexiters, failure to manifest politically correct thinking in relation to Brexit can only be accounted for by bias. Since any unbiased study must support a hard Brexit, we already know what unbiased studies must conclude. Why, therefore, waste time and taxpayers' money preparing, conducting and publishing them?

lawred2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

He must have meant Germany and France.

obviously

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

An explanation that admittedly requires a tinfoil hat is never the best explanation.

Other explanations: 1. Johson has a track record of saying that he will never do something right up until the point he does it. I'm old enough to remember when he was never going to applyfor an extension of the Article 50 period, and when he was never going to accept a Withdrawal Agreement that would divide the UK, and when he was never going to fire Sajid Javid. This is more of that.

2. Johnson has no more commitment to Brexit than he has to Remain, or indeed to anything else. This complete lack of conviction, ironically, has the beneficial side-effect that his vision is never blinkered by his convictions. Therfore, he can perfectly well understand how damaging to the UK a crash-out would be, and how damaging to him that would in turn be. Therefore, the reason he took political risks and engaged in a climb-down in order to secure a WA is that he is, in fact, very anxious to avoid a crash-out, for pragmatic self-interested reasons. That won't change between now and December.

Yes, however it's more problematic than that.

First his father..

And secondly the circles he pals around there's funny money and dubious circumstances involved so a bit of disaster capitalism goes hand in hand

ZeroThreat

murphaph wrote: »

Both have larger economies than the UK. Both realise they are small countries in an ever globalising world.

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

sondagefaux

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is really quite odd that the government continue to avoid publishing anything, and that the public don't seem to care.

They are happy to support a policy despite no actual plans, no projections, no targets.

Brexit was supposed to be done on 31st, they even had a celebration, and yet even now there is nothing concrete.

And it is slowing dawning on them, much like the implications of triggering A50 once the bravado had passed, just what the WA actually means. NI is essentially stuck in two custom regimes.

There are now select committees trying to work exactly what Johnson has agreed to and it is clearly very far from the Brexit he made it out to be.

Government of the ignorant, by the ignorant, for the ignorant.

Xertz

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

Emm, no. The French economy is roughly the same size as the UK economy and has been a bit bigger than it in recent times due to weakening of value of Sterling.

The Italian economy isn’t all that much smaller than either of them.

Germany is significantly larger than any of those three countries.

These stats are easily available by just googling.

France tends to have slow growth rates but it’s a huge mixed economy. Despite the strikes and so on, it’s probably more robust than the UK as it’s a more diverse economy. The UK tends to be very focused on financial and services sectors. France would have a broader spread, especially industrial sectors and complex high value engineering - aerospace, car making, transit technologies, telecommunications tech, life sciences and biotech, power technologies etc etc there’s also a huge area around luxury goods with some of the world’s most prestigious brands and a massive food sector that has global reach.

France tends to get underestimated because of the relatively slow growth and the visible strikes and disruption but it’s a very significant economy and generally a very stable one.

ZeroThreat

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

ambro25

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

France is on par with the UK, and Italy is not far behind both (about $0.5tn PPP).

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

only one of the 4 still sliding southwards

sondagefaux

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

What? France's economy is roughly the same size as the UK economy. Depending on the US Dollar exchange rate, it has been bigger than the UK economy from time to time, if both are measured in US Dollars.

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/france

US$2,780,152 million, or just under $2.8 trillion.

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk

US$2,824,850 million, or just over $2.8 trillion

Using those figures, French GDP was approximately $44.7 million lower than UK GDP in 2019, a trivial amount in the context of total GDP.

France has also got a slightly smaller population than the UK, so GDP per capita is similar.

A visit to both France and the UK in quick succession would demonstrate that they're both about as wealthy on average as each other, that wealth is more unevenly distributed in the UK, and more concentrated in the form of private property, particularly residential property, whereas in France it's more visibly used for the public realm, notably infrastructure and especially public transport.

reslfj

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Germany yes, but I thought the French economy is far smaller than the British one, on par with Italy?

This is from Wikipedia on Jan 31. 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_the_European_Union&oldid=938410941

Lars