Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Igotadose

another Brexiteer nim heard from, David Frost, on how the UK aren't going to sign up to a level playing field: ""So to think that we might accept EU supervision on so called level playing field issues simply fails to see the point of what we are doing.

"It isn’t a simple negotiating position which might move under pressure – it is the point of the whole project. "


That'd be project what? Project fail?

Really it's 'stop me before I shoot myself' style of negotiation yet again.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0217/1115882-trade-brexit-uk-eu/

CelticRambler

This bit seems to hit the Brexit nail on the head:

"So if it is true ... that the EU wants a durable and sustainable relationship in this highly sensitive area, the only way forward is to build on this approach of a relationship of equals."

So there you have it: the United Kingdom of England and other bits (but they're not particularly important) is an "equal" to the consensual Union of 27 European sovereign, independent states.

Strazdas

Igotadose wrote: »

another Brexiteer nim heard from, David Frost, on how the UK aren't going to sign up to a level playing field: ""So to think that we might accept EU supervision on so called level playing field issues simply fails to see the point of what we are doing.

"It isn’t a simple negotiating position which might move under pressure – it is the point of the whole project. "


That'd be project what? Project fail?

Really it's 'stop me before I shoot myself' style of negotiation yet again.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0217/1115882-trade-brexit-uk-eu/

This would be the project dreamt up by Nigel Farage and the OAPs on Clacton Pier I take it? What a way for the country to run itself.

reslfj

On mystery gold figures:

read this article from The Times:

https://twitter.com/bronwenmaddox/status/1228212106425581568?s=20

Lars

Mr.Nice Guy

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.

My take on it is that Johnson's strategy is part of his interest in the 'Madman theory' of negotiation. He was recorded in 2018, before he became Tory leader and later PM, speaking glowingly about how Trump would have negotiated Brexit:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1005034866562535424

I believe this is the gameplan. Go in hard...all sorts of breakdowns, all sorts of chaos...everyone thinks he's gone mad...eventually, you might possibly get somewhere. It's all a game of bluff I reckon.

54and56

CelticRambler wrote: »

So there you have it: the United Kingdom of England and other bits (but they're not particularly important) is an "equal" to the consensual Union of 27 European sovereign, independent states.

In any international trade deal the legal agreement applies equally to both sovereign parties, there is no discrimination. That does not mean that terms of the agreement are balanced and equal.

I'm sure if Nigeria or Austria (if it wasn't already in the EU) were negotiating a trade deal with the UK and started off by asserting that despite their economy being 1/6th the size of the UK economy they wanted to be treated as an equal in negotiations the UK would smile politely, say "of course we'll treat you as an equal" and would proceed to negotiate the best deal they possibly can using all of their economic heft along the way.

The UK can say whatever they like and the EU may even make some nice noises to keep their counterparts happy but just as you can't deny the laws of physics neither can you deny the laws of economics.

If the UK was truly an equal of the EU they wouldn't even have to mention it, it'd be obvious to everyone and if the EU tried to take advantage the UK would have the minerals and confidence to push back and go toe to toe with them.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

My take on it is that Johnson's strategy is part of his interest in the 'Madman theory' of negotiation. He was recorded in 2018, before he became Tory leader and later PM, speaking glowingly about how Trump would have negotiated Brexit:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1005034866562535424

I believe this is the gameplan. Go in hard...all sorts of breakdowns, all sorts of chaos...everyone thinks he's gone mad...eventually, you might possibly get somewhere. It's all a game of bluff I reckon.

Michel Barnier doesn't seem like the kind of person to be intimidated or tricked by a 'Madman' strategy. Though the terminology is very apt in Johnson's case.

ThePanjandrum

sondagefaux wrote: »

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.

I'm still waiting for you to realise that taking one figure from another gives $44.7 Billion so you were only 1,000 times out.

Xertz

Never confuse your millions and your billions! However, in the context of a 2.8 trillion economy 44.7 billion is mostly reflected in the fluctuations of GBP / Dollar or EUR/exchange rates

It’s still only a ~1.5% difference. When you’re in trillions that’sa lot of money but it’s just reflective of how value shifts in currency can rather dramatically change things.

That’s what worrying me a lot about GBP. In a lousy outcome, what looks like say a 10% drop in the value of sterling would have enormous implications for UK purchasing power in a world where commodities and consumer goods are priced in $ or € in reality. GBP isn’t a reference currency. The Euro is beginning to be one but the USD still remains the key reference which is why the US and to a degree the Eurozone can get away with large scale quantitative easing (money printing) while a medium size currency cannot.

A few percent of 2.8 trillion is a hell of a lot of money.

A big slump in GBP is could potentially have far more of an impact than FTAs as it would cause a big drop in UK spending power and quality of life and those that are betting against this will have their assets held in something else. There’s huge opportunity in crashing and then buying in at relatively rock bottom prices - opens up a lot of UK companies and also state infrastructure to be picked up at low low prices. So you can be sure the vultures are circling. Many of them roost in London anyway, but it’s very much a parallel economy to the reality of the UK domestic economy.

CelticRambler

reslfj wrote: »

On mystery gold figures:

read this article from The Times:

https://twitter.com/bronwenmaddox/status/1228212106425581568?s=20

Wonder was it exported to that broker's new facility in Ireland? Could make for interesting pronouncements from Ireland's next government if trade in all that gold we don't mine is added to trade in the aircraft we don't build!

Leroy42

What would be the implications if UK opted out of the WA?

They continue to assert that there will be no checks between NI and GB, so they must at least be entertaining the idea of dumping it and IMO they have the public, certainly the media, on their side.

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

Wonder was it exported to that broker's new facility in Ireland? Could make for interesting pronouncements from Ireland's next government if trade in all that gold we don't mine is added to trade in the aircraft we don't build!

If this is the article I read before and I remember correctly, it probably was just an exercise on paper of one of the banks who claimed their own gold on their spreadsheet. The gold is still in the same place , it was just exported from one owner to another on paper. They could still move the physical gold, but in this case it wasn't.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

What would be the implications if UK opted out of the WA?

They continue to assert that there will be no checks between NI and GB, so they must at least be entertaining the idea of dumping it and IMO they have the public, certainly the media, on their side.

The implications would be pretty dire.

The WA is a treaty, binding on the UK in international law. If by "opt out" we mean the UK simply refuses to comply with its obligations under the treaty, as a matter of international law the EU would be free to pursue remedies, up to and including economic sanctions on the UK. The EU, obviously, is in a position to put considerable pressure on the UK through economic measures, although the political considerations that would go into decide what sanctions to impose and how far to press them are pretty complex.

But, the possibility of sanctions and similar measures aside, repudiating the WA has adverse consequences, both domestic and international, for the UK.

Internationally, it does enormous reputational harm to the UK. They are supposed to be negotiating a network of trade deals with the US, Australia, China, North Korea, countries yet to be discovered under the sea, etc. But who in his right mind would want to make a deal with a country that has just demonstrated that it does not regard itself as bound by the deals it makes? Other countries will either defer making a UK trade deal until the UK is again regarded as a reliable state, or they will only make deals in which they themselves concede absolutely nothing to the UK, so they don't care if the deal collapses; there will be no loss to them. And the UK loses all credibility when it complains about other countries not honouring their obligations to the UK under treaties the UK has already made with other countries.

Domestically, the UK government has to face the question of why it made the WA in the first place, if it did not intend to comply with it? Under the WA the UK has already paid billions of euros to the EU; it will go on paying more billions of euros until it repudiates the WA. Why pay all these billions, only to end up in a worse position that the UK would have been in had it never made the WA at all? It's simply flushing tens of billions of taxpayers money down the toilet.

Plus, of course, repudiating the WA puts the kibosh on any kind of trade deal with the EU, which means that the UK faces all the problems of a crash-out Brexit that were threatened if they failed to make a withdrawal agreement - tariffs, massive trade disruption, port congestion, shortages, the works. And they still aren't doing the kind of preparations that would be needed to mitigate that - massive port expansions, rapid expansion of workforce trained in customs clearance procedures, hiring armies of new customs officers, stockpiling. Which means, I think, that they themselves don't expect a crash-out, which means they don't intend to repudiate the WA. But it also means that if they did intend to repudiate the WA, they'd have to deal with an awful lot of very angry voters experiencing inflation, goods shortage, job losses and all the other evils of a crash-out Brexit.

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to realise that taking one figure from another gives $44.7 Billion so you were only 1,000 times out.

It's called a typo dude...

Peregrinus

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Great post above from Peregrinus, the EU has to do nothing and ignore noise from UK and their media. UK needs us about 10x more than we need them, this fundamental assymetry remains. And we are already seeing companies in unlinking from UK, as more time passes trade with UK becomes more insignificant. Ireland already trades more with Germany according CSO.

We would very much prefer that the UK would make an FTA with the EU; the deeper the better. This would be better both for NI and the Republic, and the lack of an FTA will hurt both badly. So we're not exactly indifferent.

But, if we take seriously the noises the UK government is making about the kind of FTA that it will seek, two things follows. First, if they really mean what they say (and this is a Johnson government, so of course there is a sporting chance that they do not) then no FTA is a very real possibility, and we should brace ourselves for it. But, secondly, the kind of FTA that they do seem to be targetting - high friction, low alignment - is pretty bad for us anyway. Which, ironically, means we are less fussed about not getting it.

So we should be preparing for a high-friction FTA, or for the higher friction that will result from no FTA at all.

We should also be doing contingency planning for the possibility that HMG really does mean what it says about not having tax/regulatory controls between NI and GB. I still think that is the bit they are most likely to be lying about, but if it does happen a lot of sh!t will hit the fan very hard indeed so far as Ireland is concerned, and even if the government isn't talking about it too loudly they had better be making some plans for the emergency that will result, and talking to the EU about how it will be handled.

murphaph

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Great post above from Peregrinus, the EU has to do nothing and ignore noise from UK and their media. UK needs us about 10x more than we need them, this fundamental assymetry remains. And we are already seeing companies in unlinking from UK, as more time passes trade with UK becomes more insignificant. Ireland already trades more with Germany according CSO.

And German companies are doing the same. Exports to the UK are down while exports to the EU are up.

https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2020-01/brexit-exporte-grossbritannien-aussenhandel-wirtschaft

serfboard

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

the EU has to ... ignore noise from UK and their media.

I wish the Irish media would do the same.

briany

serfboard wrote: »

I wish the Irish media would do the same.

It's not the objective of most media outlets to act in a socially-conscious way. Their objective is eyeballs on the product.

RobMc59

murphaph wrote: »

And German companies are doing the same. Exports to the UK are down while exports to the EU are up.

https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2020-01/brexit-exporte-grossbritannien-aussenhandel-wirtschaft

I'm very pro EU but would imagine the sudden loss of an export market of 73.6 billion euros to the UK in less than a year would have adverse effects on any country-even Germany.

A Dub in Glasgo

Just read an article on BBC website that is headlined Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

'"A trade agreement that includes in particular fishing and includes a level playing field, with a country that has a very particular proximity - a unique territorial and economic closeness - which is why it can't be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan."

The Barnier slide from late 2017 showed that the Canada deal was one of the last ones before No Deal, anyone know what is going on?

Leroy42

Its a Canada style trade deal, not exactly the same deal as Canada got.

Strazdas

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just read an article on BBC website that is headlined Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

'"A trade agreement that includes in particular fishing and includes a level playing field, with a country that has a very particular proximity - a unique territorial and economic closeness - which is why it can't be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan."

The Barnier slide from late 2017 showed that the Canada deal was one of the last ones before No Deal, anyone know what is going on?

This point is completely lost on the Brexiteers. The UK is in Europe, 20 miles from France and shares a border with another state - and it is a recent ex-member.

It cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor to the EU literally on its doorstep and then expect a great trade deal (meaning Vote Leave lied to the British public about this in 2016).

On Barnier-Canada-2017, he was assuming that the UK would agree to close alignment with EU rules and be a friendly competitor - the very things that Frost rejected last night.

fash

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just read an article on BBC website that is headlined Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

'"A trade agreement that includes in particular fishing and includes a level playing field, with a country that has a very particular proximity - a unique territorial and economic closeness - which is why it can't be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan."

The Barnier slide from late 2017 showed that the Canada deal was one of the last ones before No Deal, anyone know what is going on?

Also don't forget, Canada deal took 7 years and a line by painstaking line agreement on tariffs (and didn't get rid of them all). The UK now want everything done in 7-8 months.

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Is UK about to cut itself off from world north Korea style?

Yes Brexit is bad for everyone, there's dozen iterations of this thread where this is known. However UK are 10x more dependant on EU for trade than vice versa.

I guess you are going to tell us about infamous German car manufacturers twisting EU policy next, again.

I fully realise who has the upper hand in the approaching negotiations but don't kid yourself that money and profit doesn't come into it for all,not just the UK.
In regards to German car manufacturers,my last three cars have been German but if the cost went up due to tit for tat tariffs I'd reluctantly look elsewhere.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

I fully realise who has the upper hand in the approaching negotiations but don't kid yourself that money and profit doesn't come into it for all,not just the UK.
In regards to German car manufacturers,my last three cars have been German but if the cost went up due to tit for tat tariffs I'd reluctantly look elsewhere.

Get yourself a British-made car from a wholly British-owned manufacturer, which doesn't import any components from outside Britain, and so won't have to increase prices due to tariffs on imported components.

Should be simple...

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm very pro EU but would imagine the sudden loss of an export market of 73.6 billion euros to the UK in less than a year would have adverse effects on any country-even Germany.

Unless you think the UK will just stop trading with the EU then surely making statements like yours doesn't help? The market will still be there, it will just have more cost and have more procedures than before for traders.

The argument goes both ways as well if you like. Unless you think the UK can withstand all the companies currently trading with the EU losing that trade and income and the resulting job losses. Would the UK be okay with those job losses? Airbus gone just like that? We don't make that argument because it is silly, so to state a sudden loss of the UK market is in the same area.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

I'm very pro EU but would imagine the sudden loss of an export market of 73.6 billion euros to the UK in less than a year would have adverse effects on any country-even Germany.

Why will it be "lost?". Trade in both directions will be reduced for sure, especially for goods depending on tight delivery schedules, but it isn't going to stop.

The UK is 8% of German (and EU) exports; the EU is 47% of the UK's. I know which of those is the more manageable to handle disruption.

Sam Russell

The Greeks want the Elgin Marbles back.

The Spanish want Gibraltar.

We want no border on the island of Ireland.

Anything else?

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Greeks want the Elgin Marbles back.

The Spanish want Gibraltar.

We want no border on the island of Ireland.

Anything else?

The French want the North Sea.

RobMc59

sondagefaux wrote: »

Get yourself a British-made car from a wholly British-owned manufacturer, which doesn't import any components from outside Britain, and so won't have to increase prices due to tariffs on imported components.

Should be simple...

I`m aware there are no British owned manufacturers,as are you..
The UK agreeing to follow EU standards from the very beginning would be the way to go imo.It`s very worrying that before negotiations begin the UK is saying they won`t follow standards which would allow access to the largest trading block in the world.
Like yourself,I`m a layman and have no`inside` knowledge of what will happen but I think there are three possible scenarios:1.The UK will make a humiliating climbdown(I don`t see that happening after making so much fuss).
2.There will be an agreement where both sides give ground(unlikely as the EU has the upper hand and has no reason to give ground).
3.The UK fully intends to leave without a deal and take it`s chances,having to take a hit(I believe this is the likely outcome going on the current UK and EU stance).
In addition,I`ve racked my brains as to why the UK is taking this stance with the EU-the rumours of Russian interference in the brexit referendum are worrying as is johnson in cahoots with trump-both Russia and the US see the EU as a threat and would like to see the EU fall,it`s unlikely Russia sees the UK as a serious threat.